Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Criminal Justice System

Mr. Laurence Robertson: What are his priorities for the Scottish criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement. [12038]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Our overriding priority is to enable the people of Scotland to live in safety under the protection of the law. We are taking measures to prevent crime, detect offenders, deal with cases quickly and efficiently, assist witnesses and victims of crime and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

Mr. Robertson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. I am sure that he will want to confirm that it is his intention that the Scottish criminal justice system should be seen to be independent and free from political manoeuvres. If so, will he explain the context of the transfer of Jason Campbell from a Scottish prison to the Maze in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Dewar: The application by Jason Campbell was made under the Criminal Justice Act 1961. Requests for transfers in the prison system are not uncommon and there is a normal route by which they are dealt with. I naturally regret the fact that, on this occasion, wider considerations meant that consideration of the details of the application was not perhaps as thorough as it might have been. We have instituted a very thorough review of the circumstances and exactly what happened. As a result of that, we are ensuring that there will be ministerial consideration of all transfers between prisons jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. That will, I hope, ensure that there are no difficulties in future.
I should take this opportunity to say that I have enormous respect for the dignity and restraint that was shown by the victim's family in this case. It must have been a very difficult time for them, as I think everyone in the House will appreciate.

Mr. Godman: In our criminal justice system, the definition of a vulnerable person includes both a child and a person with learning disabilities. Does my right

hon. Friend agree that, When such a Person or Someone With a mental health Problem is being interviewed by Police officers, he or she should have the right to be accompanied by an appropriate adult? Does he agree that that ought to be one of his Priorities?

Mr. Dewar: I certainly have a great deal of Sympathy With What my hon. Friend says. I recognise that he has a long and proven track record of interest in such matters, especially the way in which children and young people are dealt with in the judicial system. I accept entirely that their protection is very important. They must not be put in a position where pressure can—perhaps inadvertently—be brought to bear on them. I am certainly happy to discuss with my hon. Friend how we can improve on present performance.

Mr. Wallace: The secretary of State may recall that, in the dying days of the Previous Parliament, my hon. Friends and I persuaded his predecessor to include in the Crime and Punishment(Scotland) Act 1997 Provisions which would improve the criminal justice system in Scotland by setting up a criminal cases review authority. Given that there have been much-trailed announcements of State in a Position to make an announcement to the House today?

Mr. Dewar: I liked the judicious use of the words "persuaded my predecessor" of the value of the proposition. I do not want to be coy, but I do not want to steal anyone else's thunder. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Question 13, he will see that it is of direct relevance to the matter. He has not long to contain his curiosity.

Mr. Ancram: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), does the Secretary of State consider that the Scottish criminal justice system was well served by the shoddy Jason Campbell transfer affair? Will he explain why he has been able only to give a holding answer to the 11 simple, factual questions on the matter that I tabled for priority answer more than a week ago? Will he come clean about who took the original decision to transfer Campbell and whether at any stage he consented to that transfer? Does he realise that failure to come clean merely serves to heighten the stench of cover-up and political manipulation that permeates the incident and can only damage the integrity of the Scottish criminal justice system, which he has a duty to protect?

Mr. Dewar: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should take that rather indignant line. In a previous political incarnation, he had much experience of prison transfers and of the wider implications for the Northern Ireland peace process. We will answer his questions, of course, but he should recognise that everyone acted in good faith in this matter. I have made that clear continually. I take responsibility for what happened and I have made that clear also.

Welfare to Work

Mrs. McKenna: What arrangements are in place to ensure high-quality training for young people in the welfare-to-work scheme. [12039]

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): Quality will be built into all aspects of the new deal. Rigid monitoring will ensure that standards are maintained in training and in every other aspect of the welfare-to-work programme.

Mrs. McKenna: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of quality training for young people in the welfare-to-work programme. It is vital that young people feel comfortable with what is on offer and that they can acquire skills for the future. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to discuss with employers the best approach? I had a meeting with the major employers in my constituency, who were positive about the proposals. They wanted to be involved and supported what was on offer. They were happy that they were being consulted and that their expertise was being used to address any problems. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to carry out proper pilots and to involve all the young people and the employers, including local authorities, which are major employers in Scotland?

Mr. Wilson: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. It is essential for the credibility of the welfare-to-work programme that everybody agrees that quality is the watchword. Young people are understandably sceptical, because they have seen various schemes come and go without much improvement in their prospects. It is essential to transcend the credibility gap if the welfare-to-work programme is to be a success. The watchword for that is co-operation and we are consulting widely with everybody who will be party to the programme, including local authorities.

Mr. Rowe: Does the Minister accept that a high proportion of the young people who need most help will enter the scheme well behind many of the other applicants? My inquiries in England show that the scheme makes no serious provision for lengthening the training for backward young people. Will he look into that problem?

Mr. Wilson: I have established a rule in Scotland—although I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to know about it—that we do not call the welfare-to-work programme a scheme. Incidentally, we also do not call people backward. An extensive programme is built into the gateway, which is crucial to getting everybody working by advising individual clients of the best possible option for them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants that to succeed. For people with special difficulties in finding employment, we have a further education option to enhance their employability. Leaving aside his terminology, the hon. Gentleman is right to address the problems that such people face and we will address them through the new deal. I should be delighted to give him further information if he requires it.

Mr. Ernie Ross: My hon. Friend will know that Tayside is a pilot area and that the local authorities, the chamber of commerce and local employers have all been involved. More important, the young people who will be part of the new deal have also been involved. The report card for Tayside shows that Bob Alexander and his Employment Service team have done a marvellous job.

This week, they will go out to pre-tendering and will have pre-contract meetings with commissioning bodies. We look forward to successful pathfinding for the new deal in Tayside.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for his comments, but for the hard work that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) are putting into this programme. The pilot areas are crucial to getting things right under welfare to work. In Tayside, as in the pilot areas in the south, the genuine problems and challenges that exist can be ironed out. We must get it right. The private sector is fully involved in Tayside, as is the local enterprise company and all the partners involved in delivering welfare to work with the Employment Service. There is a real opportunity and the Government are putting more than £300 million into the programme in Scotland alone—an indication of how seriously we take it. If we all work together, we have a one-off chance to break the curse of long-term unemployment once and for all.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that high-quality training opportunities should be made available also to young people in rural areas? Will he assure the House that the £300 million programme—which is welcome for a scheme that we support so far as it goes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not 'scheme."] Not a scheme—a programme. Will he assure the House that that £300 million will not be sucked into the central industrial belt? Since there are sanctions in the programme, which worry some of us, will he give an absolute guarantee that people in rural areas will not have those sanctions applied where transport costs are the only thing that makes them turn down opportunities which otherwise would be available to them?

Mr. Wilson: We are alert to the particular needs of people in rural areas. Some 400 people are eligible for the 18-to-25 aspect of the new deal in the borders and, by definition, they are spread out among a large number of communities. It is therefore entirely right that the hon. Gentleman should ask for the provision to be tailored to those individuals and to the characteristics of the area. Transport is important and should be built into the programme; one of the reasons for choosing Tayside as a pathfinder area is that it encompasses urban and rural areas.

Council of Ministers

Mr. Cash: If he will make a statement on his functions within the Council of Ministers. [12040]

Mr. Dewar: My functions within the Council of Ministers are those of any other Minister of the Crown—to discuss, negotiate and conclude agreements on behalf of the UK Government.

Mr. Cash: At the moment, the devolution proposals in the White Paper set out a series of devolved functions and reserved functions will be proposed by the devolution Bill. We also have a Human Rights Bill before the House of Lords and the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will come before the House of Commons next week. If there is a contradiction between the policy to be


pursued by Her Majesty's Government in the Council of Ministers and the proposals that may be made by the Scottish Parliament, which will prevail? Will the irreconcilability between these two positions be resolved by the three Bills to which I have referred?

Mr. Dewar: I say with some sorrow that the hon. Gentleman is becoming more gloomy about the state of human nature almost by the year. I do not see that irreconcilability built into the system. As he well knows, there is a United Kingdom delegation. No doubt differing points of view can on occasion be discussed, but common ground is reached and everyone joins to put the United Kingdom's case. Exactly the same process will occur. The United Kingdom remains the member state of the EU and the Scottish Executive will have an input in the formulation of policy. When an agreed policy position has been reached, it will be the job of the whole delegation to ensure that it is successfully pursued. I look forward to the opportunities that this process presents.

Mr. Home Robertson: I suppose that my right hon. Friend has a certain advantage in the Council of Ministers in that he shares the commitment of the rest of the Government to achieving the benefits that will flow from a successful single European currency. Will he convey the views of businesses in Scotland on that subject to all the factions in the Opposition?

Mr. Dewar: I am anxious to reflect properly the views of the business and commercial community in Scotland. I take the view—it may be thought to be partisan, but it is well founded—that it is easier to defend our position on Europe than the negative and, I would have thought, untenable position on which the Opposition are determined to stand.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most critical industries dealt with by the Council of Ministers is the fisheries industry, which is important to the whole of the Scottish economy as well as to coastal communities?
Is the Secretary of State aware that a campaign has been launched today to raise the Sapphire from its known resting place in the North sea and that £100,000 has already been raised by the families' appeal? Will he, through the Council of Ministers, consider the possibility of matching funds if those funds will not come directly from Westminster?

Mr. Dewar: I accept the importance of the United Kingdom fishing industry and that of its Scottish component in particular. My noble Friend Lord Sewel was recently in Europe at a Fisheries Council meeting and will no doubt recognise and press that point.
I understand the hon. Lady's depth of concern about the Sapphire, as she represents a fishing community. I know from personal experience the deep distress of the families concerned. No one in the House, irrespective of our different political positions, would not feel for them and for their cause. The matter is being considered by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, whose responsibility it is. They are considering a document—a report with which the hon. Lady will be very familiar—and it would not be for me to prejudge the outcome.
I am not sure of the practicalities of the European matter, so it would be very wrong of me to comment either way, but if the hon. Lady thinks that the proposition is practical and wants to make representations to other Departments, either directly or through me, I am sure that people would be prepared to listen.

Dr. Fox: When the Secretary of State meets his European colleagues, will he explain why the Scottish Office will have to pay for the fourth year of education for Greeks and the southern Irish but not for the English or the Northern Irish? Will he use the argument of his Minister for Education and Industry—that the English are rich and can afford it? If so, how would he categorise the Germans?

Mr. Dewar: I do not think that I will have to explain that point to my European colleagues because they will know that the matter is founded on the European agreements and is a responsibility that we accept as a member of the European Union. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want us to recognise our obligations. We are anxious to ensure that there is opportunity in Scottish higher education. That is the point of the changes that are being introduced—to finance and make possible the expansion that we all favour so that this nation can remain competitive and flourish through the depth of its talent and its innovation.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Gorrie: What representations he has received about the resources required by councils to provide their statutory services. [12041]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Chisholm): My right hon. Friend and I have met a number of councils to discuss their financial positions. We have also received letters on the subject from hon. Members, local councillors and members of the public.

Mr. Gorrie: Does the Minister agree that the Government's insistence on keeping to Conservative spending plans will cause severe cuts in essential services in almost all councils, as they follow year after year of cuts, and that it will be even worse if the Government require some councils to help to bail out others, such as Glasgow, which have a funding deficit?

Mr. Chisholm: Neither the media nor the hon. Gentleman have understood the issue perfectly. Our proposals have nothing whatever to do with helping Glasgow, with the effectiveness of service delivery in any one authority, or with taking existing resources away from any authority.
The problem is that many changes in distribution are in the pipeline because of the mismatch and the changes to the formula for distributing social work grant. We are determined to act for two reasons. First, distribution is an imperfect science and it is therefore right in principle that changes should be phased in. Secondly, and more important, distributional changes primarily affect not service levels, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but council


tax levels. We are determined to protect council tax payers from massive increases flowing purely from distributional changes.

Mr. Russell Brown: Will my hon. Friend give the House an update on the current discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the recent study of social work allocations? Will he recognise the need for stability for local authorities? Will he bear that principle in mind when looking to future years?

Mr. Chisholm: The social work changes to which my hon. Friend refers are an important component of the distributional changes. It is right to recognise that there has been controversy about that, but the consensus view is that the changes should be introduced, but further reviewed. We will continue to review and monitor the social work changes and we will continue to review distributional formulas across the board. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who loses?"] There will be some losers and some gainers in terms of distribution. That will affect not service levels, but council tax levels—and it is council tax payers whom we are determined to protect.

Mr. Ancram: Does the Minister agree that concern about resourcing local councils is balanced by concern about the way in which some of them, including Renfrew and Glasgow, use those resources to conduct their affairs? Does he agree that allegations of sleaze against those councils are rightly matters of public concern? In that context, could he explain why the Secretary of State has not responded to my calls to set up public and independent investigations into the allegations? Does he not realise that in these days of Labour spin doctoring, internal party investigations will carry no credibility? Will he set up a public investigation, or is he frightened of what that public investigation might reveal?

Mr. Chisholm: There are no grounds for setting up a public investigation because there has been no breach of statutory duty. The Labour party, however, is taking firm and decisive action as a party on all these matters. Moreover, the Government have responded positively to the Nolan committee report on aspects of local government conduct. Following consultation, we will introduce and announce measures that flow from that. In terms of delivery of service, the best-value regime instituted by the Government will result in the continuing better use of resources in local government.

Prison Places

Mrs. Ann Winterton: What estimate he has made of the number of extra prison places he expects to create in the next five years. [12042]

Mr. Dewar: On present plans, some 700 extra prisoner places will be created over the next five years.

Mrs. Winterton: Bearing in mind the Government's pledge to be tough on crime and the recent statement by the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson) that sentences should mean what they say, will the Secretary of State confirm whether it is the Government's policy to follow their predecessors' policy

and end automatic early release from prison, or have they gone soft on that as well? What are the implications for extra prison places in future?

Mr. Dewar: We are, of course, looking carefully at the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 and we have implemented some of the important provisions we felt were justified and could be implemented immediately. The hon. Lady has referred particularly to parole. I am not in favour of implementation of the changes at this stage because I have respect for the Prison Service and because we need to ensure that inmates have an incentive to behave well and to obey the rules. We had very unfortunate experiences in the past—the hon. Lady is, like me, enough of a veteran to remember them—when that incentive was destroyed and I would not like to revisit that experience. We will use our judgment and consider what is right for the criminal justice system of Scotland, for the public and for those working in the system.

Mr. Browne: A new prison is to be built in my constituency. Welcome as the job opportunities it brings are, I believe that it is about time we moved on from the Tory obsession with prison building and longer sentences. Is it not about time that we started looking at law and order in a much wider context? Is it not a sad reality that the consumption of alcohol is closely related to crime and criminal behaviour? Is it not important, and probably more effective, to have proper public health programmes and social programmes to tackle the causes rather than to concentrate only on prison building and sentencing?

Mr. Dewar: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. As the daily prison population in Scotland has risen very substantially, causing considerable problems for the Prison Service, it is important that we should examine sensibly the alternatives to custodial care. That is not a soft option, as Conservative barrackers will shout, but a matter of prevention and of dealing with matters such as alcohol abuse properly; hence the new powers on drinking in public places that we have introduced and our attempts to improve facilities for treating the alcohol problem both in and out of the prison system. We are also considering other measures, such as the tagging system. That was once controversial, but I believe that it is right to have pilot tests in Scotland.

Sir Robert Smith: On the expansion of prison places, does the Secretary of State yet have an estimate of the date by which he will have tackled the problem of overcrowding in Scottish prisons?

Mr. Dewar: As the hon. Gentleman recognises, we face a problem in that respect, although it is perhaps not as acute as in other parts of the United Kingdom. That is not an excuse for ignoring or not attempting to tackle it, but I am chary of setting arbitrary dates because I am aware of the increase in the prison population. While the Bowhouse project and the 700 places in the next five years to which I referred should take much of the strain, it may be that the impact on time cannot be exactly judged for the reasons that I have given. I spent some time yesterday with the Parole Board, which brought me sharply face to face with the problems that it encounters and the stress of its increasing work load. I pay tribute to its work, which is largely unsung and often unappreciated by the wider public.

Health Service

Mr. Gamier: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health about the use of the private finance initiative to finance new capital projects in the Scottish health service. [12043]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): I meet my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health regularly. We have on occasion discussed the use of the private finance initiative for financing capital projects in the NHS in Scotland.

Mr. Garnier: Until 1 May, the Labour party opposed the PFI. What has made it change its mind?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. and learned Gentleman's memory is vague; he is mistaken. The Labour party originated the PFI, and we are developing it. We consider it a useful way to increase capital in parts of the health service. In the health service in Scotland, we have three substantial projects nearing financial completion.

Skye Bridge

Mr. Charles Kennedy: If he will make a statement on progress in reducing the Skye bridge tolls. [12044]

Mr. Dewar: Since my announcement on 4 July, which was widely welcomed, negotiations have been in progress about the changes to the very complex agreement that we inherited. The principle of reducing tolls is accepted by the parties, but the matters of detail are taking longer to finalise than I had hoped. I am, however, confident that I shall be able to announce the introduction of discounted tolls at an early date.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Secretary of State for that helpful reply and, through him, wish to express my thanks for the helpful and constructive response of the Lord Advocate in dealing with some of the local implications of the matter. I underscore that there is anxiety that the contract—I appreciate that it does not have the signature of the Secretary of State on it and that the problem is not of his making but was inherited from his predecessor—gives stalling powers to the private company, which I suspect is instinctively none too happy about any toll reduction package and its consequent commercial impact. Does he agree that the matter needs to be re-examined? I hope that the Public Accounts Committee will consider it in more detail in due course. The more we see of the matter, the more it commercially and politically stinks.

Mr. Dewar: I offer this consolation to the hon. Gentleman. Although the details have been difficult and the negotiations have taken longer than I would have liked and are not yet complete, it is fair to say that they were entered into in good faith after an agreement in principle about what we are trying to achieve. I hope that we will not have too long to wait before I can report success in the matter. The important thing is to ensure that we get the discounts, which will be a considerable advantage to regular users, in place as soon as possible. The Public Accounts Committee will consider the technicalities of the contract and the National Audit Office report, but as

the hon. Gentleman knows this was an early PFI project right at the beginning of the process—and perhaps at the start of the learning curve.

Local Government Finance

Mr. McAllion: What recent discussions he has held with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities relating to the financing of Scottish local government. [12045]

Mr. Chisholm: My right hon. Friend and I have discussed the financing of Scottish local government with the convention on a number of occasions. The most recent meetings were held on 13 October and 3 November. We next meet the convention on Friday 7 November.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend will know that the funding mismatch imposed on Scottish local government by Tory reorganisation, allied to the middle-class drift away from cities such as Dundee and Glasgow to adjoining areas with lower council taxes, has left city councils trying to provide what is effectively a regional level of service from a greatly reduced council tax base. Therefore, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on facing those hard realities by trying to broker with COSLA a financial settlement that is fair to all of Scotland? Will he take the opportunity to denounce the simplistic, divisive and dishonest spouting of those who claim that spendthrift councils are being bailed out by penny-wise councils?

Mr. Chisholm: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the position of Dundee council. As I said in a previous answer, there will be losers and gainers from the changes to the social work formula that are in the pipeline and the phasing out of the mismatch. Without those changes, quite apart from other factors, Dundee council tax payers would face an increased band E tax of £85 next year, council tax payers in Aberdeen would face an increase of £75 and those in the Western Isles would face an increase of £200—far more than in Glasgow. We have taken action because we believe that council tax payers must be protected from the extreme changes in council tax that flow from distributional changes. We support that, as do COSLA and the vast majority of council tax payers across Scotland.

Mr. Welsh: The Labour policy of underfunding local services is increasing council taxes and massively cutting services, with more cuts to come, quite apart from the massive increases in water service charges. What sort of financial deal is that for Scottish consumers and tax payers?

Mr. Chisholm: The Government are committed to creating a strong and stable economy. A fundamental way of doing that is to make sure that we put public finances into good order in the early stages of the Government. That is why we said at the election that we would keep within overall public expenditure planning totals during our first two years in office. Even within that, we have managed to find £89 million more for education in Scotland, an extra £26.7 million for capital spending on schools in each of the next four years, and an additional £12.5 million this year and £43.7 million next year for housing. That demonstrates the Government's commitment to local government.

Mr. Connarty: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the topics that he mentioned, and one that is often


mentioned by COSLA, is the financing of housing in Scotland? Does he agree that there are still major problems in respect of the quality of existing housing and the lack of housing for homeless people? Can he provide more figures to show that the Government are treating those difficulties seriously, in contrast to their derisory treatment by the previous Government?

Mr. Chisholm: Unlike the previous Government, we recognise the serious problems of Scottish housing, which were highlighted by the recent house condition survey. We have already taken action on a whole range of fronts to begin to tackle the problem. We announced the awards for the rough sleepers initiative to deal with the visible problem of people sleeping rough on the streets—an extra £16 million was provided for that purpose. We have already put £2 million into the empty homes initiative this year and there will be more next year to deal with the problem of empty homes. We have also earmarked £10 million this year for new housing partnerships and a much larger sum next year to lever in private money to complement the public resources that we are committed to putting into housing. That significant action has been warmly welcomed by the housing lobby across Scotland.

Mr. Fallon: Does the settlement with COSLA for next year make any provision for a minimum wage for council workers, and what is it?

Mr. Chisholm: Pay agreements are a matter for local authorities and their work forces. Local authorities know that we are committed to existing expenditure guidelines, apart from the extra money that I mentioned earlier. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, our general policy on a minimum wage is that the Low Pay Commission will advise on the rate for that in due course.

Scottish Parliament

Mr. Dalyell: What consultations he has had with (a) the Home Office, (b) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and (c) the Department of Health on representation of the United Kingdom in the European Council by a Minister responsible to a Scottish Parliament. [12046]

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): The Government's policy on involvement by Scottish Executive Ministers in meetings of the EU Council of Ministers is set out in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament". That reflects full collective discussion and agreement.

Mr. Dalyell: Will chapter 5, paragraph 6 therefore be modified?

Mr. McLeish: I reflect on the comments made by my hon. Friend. We are optimistic that our position vis-a-vis Europe will be enhanced, not diminished, by the advent of devolution and a Scottish Parliament. It will provide for participation in Council of Ministers meetings and in developmental policy; it will provide much more time in the Scottish Parliament to discuss European Union affairs and for more effective scrutiny; and, of course, it will give us the possibility of a representative office in Brussels to

ensure that Scotland's voice reflects the excellent service that we already get from the United Kingdom permanent representation.

Mr. Swayne: The Secretary of State participates in the United Kingdom Government's EU decision making as of right. My reading of the White Paper is that the Scottish Parliament will do so by invitation. How will Scotland's voice be heard when the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Parliament disagree? Can the Minister avoid giving me the same answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—that we shall always agree?

Mr. McLeish: I shall set aside the cynical and pessimistic tone in respect of the future of a Scottish Parliament, and instead make it clear that the creation of a Scottish Parliament will enhance our participation in European Union activities. I made the point earlier that members of the Scottish Executive will participate in meetings of the Council of Ministers and in full discussions with the United Kingdom Parliament and Government on aspects of policy. The hon. Gentleman has simply got it wrong.

Mr. Swinney: Will the Minister speculate that, if the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis had occurred after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, a Minister for agriculture responsible to the Scottish Parliament would have had the power to negotiate a separate deal for the agricultural community within Scotland?

Mr. McLeish: It is not wise to speculate in the House. The current responsibilities of Scottish Office Ministers will be transferred to the new Parliament and to the new Executive. It is important to reinforce the Government's central message: that, in our judgment, doing that will enhance the activities of agricultural affairs in Scotland vis-a-vis Europe and in relation to the many pressing issues that we confront in our day-to-day activities in Scotland.

Health Trusts

Mr. Donohoe: What progress he has made in respect of the proposals to reduce the number of health trusts in Scotland. [12047]

Mr. Galbraith: I have made clear my intention to reduce the number of trusts in Scotland. There is, however, no pre-determined blueprint regarding the configuration of trusts in Scotland. Any major reconfiguration will need to await the publication of the White Paper on the NHS in Scotland and the outcome of Sir David Carter's review of acute services.

Mr. Donohoe: I am grateful for that reply. What savings have already been made in the trusts in Scotland since the Government were elected? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that that efficiency drive will continue?

Mr. Galbraith: As my hon. Friend will know, at the start of the Government's term of office, we were able to announce £10 million to go towards waiting lists from efficiency savings within the structure of the NHS in


Scotland. We are also involved in trying to ensure that major efficiencies are achieved within the trusts in relation to such issues as purchasing, accounting, personnel matters and so on. We are making significant progress and shall continue to do so. Our aim is to ensure that every penny spent in the NHS is spent wisely and for the benefit of patients.

Mrs. Ray Michie: While the Minister is conducting that exercise, will he bear it in mind that Argyll and Bute NHS trust delivers a unique and localised service to remote rural and island areas? Does he recall that, under the last Government, efforts were made to manage the service from the central belt but, when jobs were moved from Lochgilphead to Paisley, it did not work and they were all moved back? I hope that he can give an assurance that that sort of nonsense will never happen again.

Mr. Galbraith: I am very aware about, and sympathetic to, what the hon. Lady has said. We must avoid what happened last time, when there was a blueprint for the health service in the UK. There are different areas, geographies, social structures and cultures, and we shall have different solutions for those. We shall lay down the principles; it is up to local areas to determine how to implement them.

Scottish Parliament

Mr. Canavan: If he will make a statement about progress of the Government's plans for a Scottish Parliament. [12048]

Mr. McLeish: Our proposals to establish a Scottish Parliament will be introduced in the House as soon as possible. We are also making progress in finding a site for the Parliament. I can today announce that three design feasibility studies have been commissioned into the possible sites at Calton hill, Leith and Haymarket, and quantity surveyors have been commissioned to prepare independent costings. We have also appointed consultants to undertake a transport and environmental impact assessment of the options.
I shall provide later this afternoon further information in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Canavan: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State on the leading part that they played in achieving a magnificent victory in the referendum campaign. Now that a Scottish Parliament is on its way, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong for this Parliament to pre-empt decisions on matters that will be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament? Therefore, will the Government refer the issue of student grants and student fees to the Scottish Parliament, which will take a more enlightened view than this place does?

Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend will accept the notion I hope, that we must continue to govern. The Scottish Parliament will have a substantial agenda, but hard choices and decisions that have to be made now will have to be taken. This is the first time that we have been able to celebrate in the House the magnificent victory of 11 September. It is important for the Conservatives to remember that 2.44 million Scots and people living in

Scotland voted, and that 1.77 million of them—75 per cent. or nearly three to one—voted for a Parliament. I am sure that the Opposition will take that on board.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Modernisation of the House

Dr. Tony Wright: If she will make a statement on the future work in modernising the House. [12023]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Following its report on the legislative process and the Order Paper in July, the Committee will consider further voting procedures, the parliamentary calendar, the conduct of debate and the scrutiny of European documents.

Dr. Wright: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I congratulate the Committee and my right hon. Friend on the excellent work that they have already done, which can be seen in the quality of the Order Paper before us today.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that how the House has considered legislation in the past has been nothing short of a disgrace? It has enabled party games to triumph over proper scrutiny. Whatever model of reform the Committee comes up with, whether it is Special Standing Committees or pre-legislative hearings, it must achieve the objective of improving legislative scrutiny. It may make life harder for Ministers, but it must improve the quality of what the House does.

Mrs. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the Order Paper. The changes that we have introduced have been widely welcomed throughout the House. On his main point about the importance of scrutiny of legislation, I agree that we have had insufficient scrutiny on many occasions in the past. I hope that, when we as a Government stick by our commitment to publish seven Bills in draft this year, some Committees will be able to look at those Bills in draft and enhance the quality of the legislation that follows.

Mr. Boswell: Is the President satisfied that this summer's consideration of the Finance Bill took place over a total of 12 days compared with the 77 days of consideration of the last Finance Bill, under the previous Government? If she is not satisfied, will she take steps with her colleagues to ensure that such a compressed timetable never happens again?

Mrs. Taylor: The majority of people in the House are satisfied with the scrutiny of the Finance Bill, and it certainly has not been discussed by the Modernisation Committee.

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is precisely because the previous Government played ducks and drakes with our rights in the House that it is very important that these changes should be only to the advantage of the taxpayer and the voter. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give a simple


undertaking that no procedural change, especially in the Committee sector, will go ahead that will in any way limit the rights of the Back Bencher either to raise or to examine in some detail any number of points in legislation, or to place probing amendments on the agenda?

Mrs. Taylor: The recommendations made by the Modernisation Committee were made after discussion of papers submitted by many people in the House—for the most part, people with considerable experience on the Back Benches. I think that the recommendations that we have made do reflect the desire of Back Benchers for change in the way that we propose.

Mr. Tyler: Will the President address the question of the possible implications of recommendations of the Modernisation Committee that she chairs—a Committee on which I have the pleasure to serve—for the way in which our staff are employed in the House? They give very loyal and very efficient service to the House, but in recent months there have been notable failures in consultation, especially with the doorkeepers and, I understand, with the postal staff. Can the President give us an absolute assurance that no changes to the ways in which the House proceeds will be implemented without proper consultation with the appropriate staff?

Mrs. Taylor: Such a question would be more appropriately put to the House of Commons Commission than to myself, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's points are raised.

Speeches (Time Limits)

Mr. Pickthall: What consideration she has given to time-limiting all contributions to debates in the Chamber. [12024]

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Standing Order gives the Chair wide discretion to impose the 10-minute limit when the number wishing to speak justifies it. I am not convinced that there is a need to limit all contributions in that way.

Mr. Pickthall: Is not one of the most infuriating experiences for any Back Bencher that of, having prepared a contribution for a debate, spending as long as several hours sitting in the Chamber waiting to deliver that contribution, only to find that the opportunity is lost because several senior colleagues, higher up the batting order, have spent 30 or 40 minutes delivering their wisdom to the House? That experience has been the lot of several hon. Members waiting to deliver their maiden speech. Does she not consider that, when many hon. Members wish to speak in a debate, a 20-minute time limit on Front Benchers and a 10-minute time limit for everyone else is reasonable, given that we would need some injury time or time added on?

Mrs. Taylor: When a 10-minute limit is imposed, it applies to all Members, be they Privy Councillors or the newest Back Benchers. I think there is concern that, on occasion, certain Members tend to speak for excessively long periods when others want to make contributions. The Modernisation Committee will consider the whole subject of the conduct of debate, and it will be for the Committee

to consider ideas such as that which my hon. Friend has mentioned: injury time to encourage interventions or promote intervention when there is a 10-minute limit. Many people will have sympathy with him on that score, because I believe that we have all, at some time, sat through a debate without being able to participate.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am glad that the right hon. Lady made her last point. Does she agree that spontaneity is terribly important in debate and that, if Members cannot intervene, the lifeblood of debate drains away? Surely we do not want a series of Members delivering pre-prepared speeches, never giving way and not replying spontaneously to other speeches?

Mrs. Taylor: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Interventions and spontaneity are important because they are the only thing that ever makes anyone change their mind. If that happens rarely, so be it, but at least an opportunity exists. I believe that the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) made about the possibility of injury time should be considered carefully, although we do not want to do anything that would allow abuses of the overall purpose of a 10-minute limit. The Committee can usefully look into that.

Modernisation of the House

Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to implement the recommendations contained in the first report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons (HC190, Session 1997–98). [12027]

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Committee reported on 23 July, and a debate on its conclusions is to be held in the near future.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Given that the Government are committed, as a result of the Labour party manifesto, to making Parliament more relevant and more effective—that was the reason for establishing the Modernisation Committee—does the right hon. Lady not think, on reflection, that the Government's actions since 1 May have had the opposite effect, and indeed diminished Parliament? She must recall that her Government introduced a guillotine before the Second Reading debate on a Bill, changed the format of Prime Minister's Question Time without any consultation with the House, and spin-doctored important statements to the media ahead, and instead, of giving them in the Chamber. On reflection, does the right hon. Lady not think that those issues are more important than the very welcome introduction of a new and easier-to-read daily agenda?

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the new and easier-to-read daily agenda. I reject his basic presumption that we have not introduced useful changes. Hon. Members worked extremely hard between the election and the summer recess to pass a record number of pieces of legislation. I think that we are finding ways for hon. Members to make extremely important and useful contributions both to debates and in Select Committees.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not a bit rich for Tory Members to complain about not having sufficient time to consider legislation and about the Government's introduction of guillotines when the House of Commons would have risen at about 7.30 pm one night last week if a succession of Labour Members had not kept the debate going until its usual 10 pm completion? Last night, that great Opposition—as they like to call themselves—allowed the House to rise at 8 o'clock. I have news for them: in the old days, we used to sit all night at least once every week—and sometimes we would have two or three all-night sittings a week. I cannot stomach the idea that Tory Members are so anxious to get away from this place that they cannot stay the course. In the old days, Members of Parliament used to be here for many more days. There is a bit of hypocrisy.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is not showing his characteristic generosity to Opposition Members. He should understand that they have had other things on their minds in recent weeks.

Thursday Sittings

Mr. Bennett: If she will introduce proposals to start sittings at 2 pm on Thursdays. [12028]

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I have no plans to do so at present, but the Modernisation Committee will consider the matter with other suggestions when it examines the parliamentary calendar. My hon. Friend has written to the Committee about the proposal and we shall look at it.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she accept that one of the great successes of the Jopling Committee—I am speaking as one of the few remaining Members of Parliament who served on it—was to convince the House to be flexible with its sitting hours? If the Opposition are so keen to scrutinise constitutional matters on the Floor of the House, will my right hon. Friend give some thought to the possibility of the House sitting on Tuesday and Thursday mornings? Does she accept that, if we sat half an hour earlier on a Thursday, we could rise half an hour earlier? It would make a tremendous difference if those who must travel back to the north of England, Scotland and Wales could leave at 6.30 rather than 7 pm and thus avoid the difficult scramble to get trains and planes.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a legitimate point, although I am not sure that starting earlier on Thursday would guarantee an earlier finish. That point can be examined by the Modernisation Committee, as can my hon. Friend's very interesting idea that the House could sit in Committee on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. Those ideas are worth further investigation.

Regional Affairs

Mr. Bill O'Brien: If she will move to provide for an additional Sub-Committee of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee to consider regional affairs; and if she will make a statement. [12029]

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Select Committee has already been given the power to appoint two Sub-Committees. It is up to the Committee to decide how to choose inquiries within its terms of reference.

Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response, and I congratulate her on the way in which the Select Committees were established so soon after the general election. I raise the issue of a Sub-Committee for the regions because much importance is attached to the development of the regions. I believe that we should reach a statutory agreement on the way that we approach the regions question. We should be able to take specific evidence to a Sub-Committee regarding the Government's progress in implementing and introducing regional agencies. Against that background, I ask my colleague to consider the matter, which is important to people in the regions.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is aware that the Committee has two Sub-Committees, because it was formed by the merger of two previous Select Committees. I do not deny what he says about the importance of the regions, and there will be legislation on the topic later in this Session. However, I remind him—he is a member of the Transport Sub-Committee—that either of the Sub-Committees or the Committee itself could have an inquiry into any aspect of regional development that was relevant to the policy of that Department, so the Committee is not excluded from the kind of investigation that he thinks may be necessary.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady look seriously at the way in which we can hold regional offices of Government to account? The Government have a proposal for regional government in London, to take place from 2000, which is very welcome, but not as yet in any other regions of England. Civil servants have no direct accountability to anybody, although across all Departments they wield great power. Will the right hon. Lady allow time for thinking through the implications of the question asked by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), as that would be widely welcomed by English Members?

Mrs. Taylor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I would not close my mind to considering alternative ways of making people accountable. However, I emphasise again that the Select Committee in question could examine that as a topic and could make recommendations if it considered that appropriate.

UN Observers (Iraq)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Madam Speaker, you gave me permission to raise under Standing Order No. 24 the dangerous situation in Iraq. This is not a kite-flying statement, but a genuine request to you to consider whether or not the House of Commons should have its say before any blood is spilt, rather than react to horror. I acknowledge the presence of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who has responsibility for the middle east.
I must persuade you of three things: that the matter is definite, urgent and important. It is definite in that Iraq has refused American observers and investigators. Iraq has threatened to shoot down surveillance aircraft. There are moves in Washington to take unilateral action, and not only the extreme views of Newt Gingrich but those of others make this a dangerous cocktail.
I argue that the matter is urgent in that, by the time the House of Commons meets tomorrow, this country could be supporting military action, if not participating in it. In the public print, we read that 10 Downing street staff have agreed British support with their White House equivalents. This is still a parliamentary democracy, not a presidential country, and the House of Commons ought to be consulted before one British soldier, sailor or airman is committed to armed conflict.
The matter is important because Saddam Hussein may not be averse to military action. In 1993, like every other visitor to Baghdad, I was taken on the first morning there to the Amariya—the shelter where hundreds of women and children were charred and scorched to death by a cruise missile. That is used by the regime—possibly understandably so, but nevertheless used—to support its own view of the world.
When one sees, in the children's hospital in Baghdad, hundreds of infants—I exaggerate not—expiring in one's presence as a result of sanctions, it leads one to think that at least one should talk to the Iraqis about the imposition of sanctions. If not to the Iraqis, one should certainly talk to the French, the Russians and the Chinese, as well as the Arab League. Military action could have reverberations, and the Government ought to hear what the Commons thinks—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been allowed the time allocated to him under Standing Order No. 24. I have, of course, listened carefully to what he has said. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I must give my decision without giving any reason for it. I regret that I do not consider that the matter raised is appropriate for discussion under the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit the application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the President of the Board of Trade to refuse to answer a parliamentary question—in this instance, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—even though to provide an answer would entail only 10 minutes of the right hon. Lady's diary secretary's time, and would involve neither excessive expense nor any risk to our national security?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must give me details of such a situation. I cannot give him a yes-or-no answer without being fully informed of what he is talking about, which I am not at present.

Mr. James Wallace: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that on Question 1, I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he was able to make an announcement about criminal cases and the review authority for Scotland. I was told to exercise some patience, because his hon. Friend the Minister of State would reveal all when answering Question 13. Of course, we did not reach Question 13. Is there any chance of extra time, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: I wish there were. I shall let the hon. Gentleman into a little confidence, if I may. When the Scottish Office team were leaving, I observed that we did not make the progress on Scottish questions that I had hoped we would. That being so, I make the general point that I hope that we shall make better progress in future on Scottish questions. Perhaps I can be helped by Back Benchers as well as those on the Front Benches. Perhaps, also, those on the Treasury Bench will let the Scottish Office team know what I have said.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Further to the first point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was a simple one, based on how many days the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had spent in her office between 1 August and 5 October. May I have the exact criteria for not answering the question? I understand that national security or excessive cost must be involved. Tracking down the Beckett family caravan surely does not fall into either of those categories.

Madam Speaker: I shall want to know the full situation. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said that he would write to me about the matter. I shall look into it and respond. I have no idea how many hours or days the President of the Board of Trade spent in her office, and I cannot be expected to respond until I have undertaken my research. I open my mouth in the House only when I have a proper answer to give, not to state something that I imagine.

Division No. 79 (Corrected Figures)

MR. JON OWEN JONES (LORD COMMISSIONER TO THE TREASURY) and MRS. MARGARET EWING, who acted as Tellers in Division No. 79 on Monday 3 November, came to the Table.

Mr. Jones: We have to inform the House that the numbers voting "Aye" in Division No. 79 yesterday on the Third Reading of the Education (Student Loans) Bill were reported in error by us as 283. The number voting "Aye" was 293.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. I shall see that the correction is made in the Journal. I hope that this will not happen again.

Prohibition of Bull Bars

Mr. Richard Spring: I beg to move,
That leave be given bring in a Bill to prohibit the fitting of bull bars to motor vehicles.
Those of us who go into public life are often influenced in our attitudes by our personal experiences. These may turn on the great issues of the day such as the level of taxation and our relationship with other countries or the future of the welfare state, or on something specific.
Nearly five years ago, I stopped my car in Bury St. Edmunds to allow someone else to park. In my rear-view mirror, I spotted a 4x4 vehicle heading towards me. It soon became apparent that it would not stop, and seconds later the inevitable collision took place. I remained calm, because my vehicle, a Volvo estate car, had a reinforced outer steel chassis and was regarded as the safest car manufactured.
I got out of the car to examine the damage. The 4x4 vehicle, fitted with bull bars, was undamaged. On superficial examination, the damage to my estate car did not seem great. It was taken away, however, to be properly examined. I was horrified to be informed subsequently that such was the damage from the bull bars that the chassis had buckled. In fact, the car was effectively written off. I was truly shocked, because it struck me: if bull bars could destroy a Volvo estate car, what could they do to a child's head? As a father of young children, I found the prospect sickening.
In Germany, it has been established that a vehicle could kill a child while travelling at 20 mph. Fitted with bull bars, a death could result at 12 mph, or even as low as 10 mph. The Transport Research Laboratory has indicated that the number of fatalities or serious accidents arising directly from bull bars is quite limited. Others take a different view. The truth is that nobody really knows. What we do know, however, is that, without any doubt, some children have tragically lost their lives through bull bar-related accidents. It has been fully documented.
Bull bars were invented in Australia, in the outback, to prevent serious accidents with kangaroos. Well, there are no kangaroos in Britain. Even in Australia, bull bars are being banned in urban areas.
Given the evidence, it is very disappointing that bull bars are still legal in Britain. Over a number of years, the Department of Transport has sought a way forward with the European Commission, but progress has been lamentably slow. Sweden and Finland object to the ban. Apparently, in Lapland there is a risk of colliding with moose or reindeer. In Britain there are no moose and very few reindeer. It seems extraordinary that the apparent needs of a small corner of Europe should mean no progress elsewhere. Whatever happened to subsidiarity? Jersey and Cyprus have simply gone ahead and banned bull bars, and those bans have not been challenged.
I am delighted that the Department of Transport has issued a comprehensive consultation document. The possibility exists for unilateral national action. The Automobile Association and Royal Automobile Club oppose bull bars. They are not used in royal parks, and large commercial delivery organisations, such as DHL, have banned them. A number of insurers refuse to cover vehicles that are fitted with bull bars. Overwhelmingly,


public opinion is moving against them. I applaud the efforts of successive Road Safety Ministers to move towards a ban—now, most notably, Baroness Hayman.
My Bill affords the opportunity to ban bull bars. This is not a party political issue. Sponsors of the Bill come from the three main political parties. I hope that the Government will support the Bill, but, if not, that they will find another route to get them banned. Talking of road safety is like approving of motherhood and apple pie. How can one be against it? In Britain, we have a good track record, which could only be enhanced by the successful enactment of the Bill into law. This is quite specific, and will make a difference.
In other parliamentary traditions, the name of the main promoter of the Bill is sometimes attached to the new law. I say this not for myself but because, if that tradition existed in the House, the Bill, if passed, might well be called the Flynn law, after the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). He has tried twice, unsuccessfully, to move this process on. In so doing, he has greatly highlighted this issue in the public domain. I applaud him once again today.
The time has come to remove these ugly, dangerous and offensive devices from our roads. The blunt truth is that bull bars are not fashion accessories; they are killing accessories.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. John Austin, Mr. Alan Duncan, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. Andrew George, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. John Hutton, Sir Peter Lloyd, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. David Ruffley and Mr. Desmond Swayne.

PROHIBITION OF BULL BARS

Mr. Richard Spring accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the fitting of bull bars to motor vehicles: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 February, and to be printed [Bill 73].

Opposition Day

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Student Finance

Madam Speaker: I must inform the House that, on the two motions tabled by the Opposition, I have had to limit Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes. I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the expansion of higher education which has taken place in recent years; shares the view of the Dearing Committee that a further period of expansion is desirable; believes that part of the cost of this expansion should be met by students themselves, but agrees with the Dearing Committee that means-tested maintenance grants make an important contribution to improving access to higher education for students from low-income backgrounds and deeply regrets the Government's hurried decision to reject this advice; and finds incomprehensible the Government's proposal that students from other EU countries should be able to attend four-year courses at Scottish universities on terms more favourable than those available to home students living in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
I am pleased that, on the first occasion when the Opposition have the opportunity to choose the subject for debate after our prolonged summer recess, my colleagues and I agreed that we should focus the attention of the House on the shambles that is the Government's higher education policy.
That subject was last discussed when the Secretary of State for Education and Employment came to the House at the end of July following the publication of the Dearing report. He came to the House within a matter of hours of the publication of that report in order to reject its key recommendations on the future of undergraduate student finance.
Dearing recommended, first, the continuation of means-tested maintenance grants in order to ease access for students from a low-income background. The Secretary of State announced that the Government were to reject that recommendation.
Secondly, Dearing recommended against the introduction of means-tested tuition fees, although the report considered it as option C. The Secretary of State came to the House of Commons to announce that, despite the Dearing report's recommendation that it be rejected, he and the Government would introduce means-tested tuition fees.
Thirdly, Dearing recommended that any income raised from students in order to finance the future growth of higher education should be ring-fenced to go into the higher education system. The Government have made it clear that that recommendation, too, is rejected.
The Secretary of State came to the House and disingenuously presented his policy as Dearing-plus. His policy was not Dearing-plus; his policy was to reject Dearing and substitute his own, or perhaps I should say the Treasury's, policy instead. His branding of that policy as Dearing-plus has fooled almost no one. I say "almost no one"; a week ago I would have said it had fooled no one, but it appears to have fooled the Prime Minister.
We saw last week, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is embarrassed by the Prime Minister. I am not surprised. The Prime Minister was asked why the Government had rejected the Dearing report, and his reply was nothing short of astounding. The Prime Minister said:
I made it clear throughout"—
by which he meant the election campaign—
that we should abide by the recommendations of the Dearing committee".—[Official Report, 29 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 892.]
I know that the Prime Minister is not a detail man, but as a statement that beggars belief. It is wrong on almost every count. It is not true that the Prime Minister made it clear throughout the election campaign that the Government intended to implement the Dearing report's recommendations. It is just as well that it is not true, because that is a policy that they will not carry out.
Last week, the Leader of the Opposition repeated to the Prime Minister his words during the election campaign, when he said:
Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education.
That was not, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) might have said, a remark offered on a wet night in Dudley; it was a remark that was regularly repeated by people who are now senior Ministers.
On 24 April, not much more than a week before polling day, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), now the Foreign Secretary, said:
We are quite clear that tuition costs must be met by the state.
He went on to say that he was happy to predict that, if the Tories got back for a fifth term, they would start to charge students for tuition. It is a pity that he did not offer a prediction about what Labour would do if it was elected on 1 May.
Last week, the Prime Minister was wrong in his description of the Government's present policy. Furthermore, he was wrong in his recollection of what either he or his right hon. and hon. Friends said during the election campaign. That shambles at Prime Minister's Question Time last week was symptomatic of a much wider shambles that has pervaded this field of policy since the Secretary of State's rushed statement to the House in July, before the summer recess.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government did not publish their suggestions on how loans are to be paid back until the last day of the Labour party conference? To obtain that information on the day of the conference, Labour Back Benchers had to access it through the internet. The proposal was that, as soon as people earn £10,000 they will have to pay 9 per cent. of their income towards their loan. A student who has been on a four-year course will probably be paying back the loan for 30 years.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right about the timing of the publication of the details of that proposal. He is a trifle grudging in his representation of the Secretary of State's political skills. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman was right to conceal that information from his party conference if he wanted to get the motion passed on the floor. It was a straightforward exercise in political management.
More important, my hon. Friend could have pointed out that not only was that information published at the very end of the Labour party conference, but it was denied to people whose opinions were being sought following the publication of the Secretary of State's recommendations at the end of July.
It is important to understand why this shambles arose. When he took office, the Secretary of State thought that he knew what Dearing intended to propose, and it was supposed to be relatively straightforward. All parties in the House supported the continued development of higher education. One of the aspects of our record in office of which I am most proud is the improved access to higher education between 1979 and 1997. I agree with Sir Ron Dearing and with the Secretary of State that continued development of higher education should be an objective of Government policy.

Mr. Phil Willis: Is the shadow Secretary of State also proud of the Tory Government's record of a 40 per cent. reduction in spending per student in higher education?

Mr. Dorrell: The most important thing is to focus on the number of people who have had the opportunities afforded by high-quality higher education. One of the findings of the Dearing review was that the expansion of higher education allowed a dramatically increased number of people to take part, and, furthermore, that they had done so without undermining the quality of the system. That is a Dearing finding with which I agree.
The Secretary of State thought that this matter would be straightforward, and that there would be support for continued development of higher education. He also recognised that the financing of that continued growth required a contribution from students. He expected the Dearing committee to recommend the end of the maintenance grant as the means by which the student contribution to the growth of higher education would be financed. He hoped to be able to present it to the House and to the world as an uncomfortable but unavoidable fact.
The right hon. Gentleman expected the support of the Dearing report for that recommendation, and what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends said during the election campaign were weasel words. They made it clear that they would not introduce tuition fees. They were not expecting to do so, as they were hoping that Dearing would let them off the hook by recommending the ending of the maintenance grant.
The problem that the Secretary of State found when he came to office and actually read the Dearing report was that the Dearing review team did not perform their part of the bargain. They looked at the subject in depth, and concluded that the superficial analysis—to which the Secretary of State is still working—was wrong. The Dearing review is very explicit on that. At paragraph 20.66, it says:
In going through that process"—
the process of review of the options—
we"—
the members of the Dearing review—
all changed and developed our views: we did not end up where we started.
It is a great pity that the Secretary of State did not allow himself and his colleagues in the Government sufficient time to go through the same process. In his anxiety to get


to the Floor of the House and announce a quick conclusion, the Secretary of State denied himself and his colleagues the opportunity to consider the evidence that led the Dearing team to a different conclusion from the one that they, the right hon. Gentleman and—probably—we expected when the Dearing review was established.

Mr. Simon Hughes: 1 share the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the new Government's change of position and the misleading nature of their comments before the election. Just for the record, can it be made clear whether it is Conservative party policy that students should make a contribution to their fees?

Mr. Dorrell: I have already said—I was slightly surprised by the quiet in the House as I said it—that it was not a subject of dispute between the Government and Opposition Front-Bench teams that, if we are to see the continued growth of higher education, students need to participate in the financing of that growth. The question is how. The Dearing review examined the central options, which the Government have examined, and recommended against the conclusions that the Government reached. Let us examine why the Dearing review reached the conclusion that it did.
Dearing said that he was concerned about the problem of equitable access to higher education for students from a low-income background. When the Secretary of State came to the House in July, he said that he was also concerned about that subject. It is therefore strange that he should have rejected Dearing's recommendation to continue the means-tested maintenance grant, because Dearing recommended that it be continued precisely in order to address the problems of equitable access for students from low-income backgrounds.
There are some fairly startling figures in the Dearing report. Let us consider equivalently qualified students with two A-levels prior to entering higher education. Of people taking A-levels and securing two, 77 per cent. of those from high-income backgrounds go on to higher education. The equivalent figure for students from low-income backgrounds is 47 per cent. It is a responsibility of the taxpayer, through the Government, to seek to ensure that the playing field is made as level as it can be for students from low-income backgrounds, yet the Government have set their face firmly against that Dearing recommendation and analysis.

Dr. Lynne Jones: All that the right hon. Gentleman has said is quite correct. I think that Dearing was absolutely shocked to discover that, although there had been a great increase in the number of people going into higher education, the number of those from lower socio-economic groups had hardly gone up at all. Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore accept that it was a mistake for his Government to move from full maintenance grants to 50 per cent. loans?

Mr. Dorrell: The issue is not a great inquiry about what happened over the past 18 years, but what the Government are going to do now. From the point of view of the hon. Lady's question, what the Government are going to do is take the record they inherited and make it

a great deal worse. The Secretary of State's proposals will make it £2,265 more expensive for a student from a low-income background to do a three-year undergraduate course in England than it was on the day that the right hon. Gentleman took office.
The hon. Lady should address her question to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, whose proposals will make it more difficult for a student from a low-income background to finance a course of higher education than it is for a student from a middle or higher-income background.
That is the central charge against the Government. A high-income student will face a cost increase of £3,000 for a three-year course, but a low-income student will face a cost increase of £5,265. That is an extraordinary testament to the new Labour Government, and it is the central point that the Secretary of State must explain to his right hon. and hon. Friends, the student body and those who are responsible for managing the university sector, who do not share his analysis.

Ms Margaret Hodge: The right hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for more than 15 minutes, and we have no idea what policy he would follow if he were Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Does he support the introduction of tuition fees, and does he believe that they should be means-tested?

Mr. Dorrell: I thought that I had made it clear that I do not support the Government's proposals, which are the subject of our debate today. It is an old tactic for Government Back Benchers—and the hon. Lady is a skilled exponent of it—whenever the Government are in difficulty, to ask the Opposition what they would do. This Parliament has four and a half years to run, and the hon. Lady should inquire of the Secretary of State how he will deliver the combined objectives of improved access to higher education and equitable access for students from a low-income background.

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Mr. Willis: rose—

Mr. John Gunnell: rose—

Mr. Dorrell: I must move on, but I will give way later.
The need for equitable access to degree courses is not the only reason why the Dearing proposals differed from those that the Government intend to introduce. The Dearing report also envisaged a more flexible system of higher education, that responded more accurately to the demands of students.
One of the reasons for Dearing's recommendations is made explicit in paragraph 20.68:
We believe that
these recommendations
will enable students to be more demanding of institutions".
In other words, institutions should respond more directly to students whose support and custom they seek.
Dearing expected the creation of more diploma courses and more access to part-time courses, which already charge 25 per cent. of tuition costs as tuition fees. That is why Dearing made the recommendation he did on tuition


fees. He wished to avoid unnecessary and perverse distortions in the development of the system and, in particular, in the development of more diploma courses and more part-time courses. The Secretary of State's proposals will impede that development.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is curious that the hon. Members for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg)— both former prominent activists in the student movement and long-term opponents of tuition fees—have suddenly, and without explanation or apology, become supporters of the Government's policy? Does he agree that it is therefore significant that both hon. Members are absent from the Chamber?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is an old sparring partner of both hon. Members. It is significant that they have chosen not to attend today's debate to support their U-turn in person. They are too frightened of the authorities in Millbank tower to raise the voices that they have traditionally raised against the policy being advanced by the Secretary of State.
The final reason why Dearing recommended the policy is made explicit in the paragraph to which I have referred. Dearing feared that, if the student contribution was raised by the abolition of maintenance grant, the money might never reach the higher education institutions at all. The report stated:
We fear that if public subsidies for maintenance are reduced, the funding released would not be redirected to higher education institutions.
It is not often that an official committee has its predictions proved so triumphantly right within two months of the publication of its report. But that is precisely the policy that the Government have now made clear—or more or less clear—they are to pursue. They will raise extra money from students, but they will not provide that money to the higher education sector.
Last Friday's edition of The Times Educational Supplement published a memo circulating within the Department which confirmed that the cash raised by the £1,000-a-year tuition fees will be redirected away from higher education. The memo said:
The issue is sensitive—
you are telling me—
because the £165 million package for 1998-99 does not allow universities to keep all the funds raised by the new £1,000 fees as extra income".
The memorandum makes it crystal clear that
they retain £125 million out of an estimated £150 million.
Dearing recommended a set of proposals precisely to safeguard the university system against the manoeuvre that the Secretary of State has engaged in: to raise extra money from students, and use it to finance a deficit somewhere else in public expenditure. That is the charge against the Secretary of State—not only has he undermined equitable access, but he has done so under false pretences.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): That is not true.

Mr. Dorrell: The Secretary of State says that that is not true. Is he saying that a memorandum circulating

within his Department and written by civil servants is a Tory plant? These are the figures from the memorandum. Is he denying those figures? Will he come to the Dispatch Box and say that the figures in the memorandum are wrong? Will he explain to the House what the right figures are? I would be interested to hear his comments, and I shall give way to him.
The Secretary of State stays firmly in his seat. Clearly, he recognises that his officials' memorandum is right, and that the money raised from charging students will not go into the higher education system.

Mr. Don Foster: I entirely agree with the shadow Secretary of State that we need a clear statement from the Secretary of State on ring fencing. He has stated that the Conservative party's policy is clear—it is to accept Dearing in its entirety, including the £1,000 non-means-tested fees, regardless of income, for all parents. For the sake, therefore, of Tory party unity, will the right hon. Gentleman condemn the Tory party candidate in the Winchester by-election, who has just produced a leaflet which says:
Gerry Malone has thrown his weight behind Winchester's students in their campaign against the introduction of tuition fees?

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Dorrell: I am absolutely delighted to endorse Gerry Malone as the Conservative candidate for Winchester, and I look forward to welcoming him back to the House of Commons as the next Member of Parliament for that constituency. He is right to insist that the Government should explain to the electorate of Winchester how they will deliver the objectives set out by the policy that they have introduced.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is wrong to say that I have explicitly endorsed every detail of the Dearing report. The Government made a serious mistake, and I have demonstrated how they have tripped over themselves as a consequence—I have more to say on that. They were so anxious to get to this place to make an announcement that they did not read the Dearing report.
The Dearing report is a major piece of work and its recommendations should have been the subject of more serious analysis by the Secretary of State and the Government. Instead, at the end of July, we were presented with a few thoughts sketched out on the back of a couple of envelopes, and higher education policy developed on that basis during the summer. That was pretty obvious to any onlooker.
Let us consider the saga of the gap year students. Within days of the Secretary of State announcing the policy, we heard stories of students who were signed up for courses starting in autumn 1998 shifting to start in autumn 1997 to avoid being affected. Ministers were caught completely unawares.
On 7 August, the noble Baroness Blackstone, who was apparently left in charge while the Secretary of State took a well-earned holiday, dismissed as "irresponsible scaremongering" the hyping of fears that students who had deferred their entry to university until 1998 would bring it forward a year and be pushed into trying to take up places in autumn 1997. The noble Baroness said:
This sort of irresponsible scaremongering helps no-one—neither the students, the universities, nor the admissions service.
On 11 August, we heard that the Government had changed their position; someone briefed The Times on behalf of the holidaying Secretary of State, and said:
It's a one-off and not for those who have decided to go off back-packing. It should not be presented as a U-turn.
The aide, who no doubt thought that he was being helpful, was of course talking about the proposal to allow students to start a course in 1998 provided that they had signed up to a course of charitable work in the gap year.
It is just as well that that first concession was not presented as a U-turn, because the true U-turn came three days later, when the Government announced that the fears were not all scaremongering hype, and that the gap year arrangement would be open not only to those who had signed up for charitable work but to all 19,000 students who were expecting to start their courses in autumn 1998.
Within three weeks of the Secretary of State announcing his gap year policy, there have been three different versions. That was the first example of the noble Baroness's deft political touch.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that confusion was left trailing in the wake of the various U-turns, in that there were further anomalies, as with my constituent who intended to have a gap year but waited until her A-level results had confirmed her university place, and found that she was excluded arbitrarily from the Government's concession?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We might expect a fourth concession, although I would not hold out much hope for his constituent. That is an example of what happens when a Government introduce a policy within hours of a report's publication, without having thought through the details.
There are other details that Labour has not thought through. I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear to the House whether he agrees with Baroness Blackstone or with the Prime Minister about college fees for Oxford and Cambridge. The noble Baroness has made no secret of her view that the Oxbridge college fees system is an anomaly.
An unnamed Minister, whose views were an uncannily accurate reflection of those of the noble Baroness, was quoted in the Financial Times on 23 October. The Minister said:
with the entire sector facing a squeeze, it's becoming increasingly difficult to defend a system which gives extra money to the rich".
On 24 October, the Financial Times had the headline, "Blair steps into Oxbridge Funding Row". This is a Government who make policy by press leaks to the Financial Times; it is a facility they have used more than once in recent weeks.
Is the Secretary of State lining up with his noble Friend the Minister of State, or is he lining up with the Prime Minister, who has made it clear that he has no truck with the ending of Oxford and Cambridge college fees? Will the Secretary of State tell us what is going on with the policy on Oxford and Cambridge college fees? Will he tell us who makes policy on the issue? Is it the Secretary of State, Baroness Blackstone or the Prime Minister? If he does not intend to make an announcement this afternoon, will he tell

us when the announcement will be made? Perhaps he will tell us which copy of the Financial Times we should buy to find the authoritative statement of the Government's policy.
We now come to the reason for the presence of the Scottish Minister for Education and Industry on the Government Front Bench this afternoon. The shambles over gap year students and the shambles over Oxford and Cambridge college fees are as nothing compared with the shambles the Government have got themselves into on English students, Welsh students and Northern Irish students attending Scottish universities. Let us be clear about the issue.
Some 27,000 students in Scottish universities today come from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Some 48 per cent. of the student population in Edinburgh, 45 per cent. of the student population at St. Andrews, 36 per cent. in Dundee and 32 per cent. in Stirling are non-Scottish UK students who will now be asked to pay £4,000 of fees for a four-year course that costs the Scottish students studying alongside them in the same seminars £3,000.
The Secretary of State is a member of a United Kingdom Cabinet. He must explain to the United Kingdom Parliament why the same course, supported by the same taxpayers, should cost his constituents £4,000 in fees, but should cost the constituents of the Scottish Minister for Education and Industry £3,000 in course fees. The Secretary of State must answer that question. Why is the deal that is good enough for the Scottish Minister's constituents not good enough for the constituents of the Secretary of State and of every Member of this House of the United Kingdom Parliament who represents a constituency in England, in Wales, or in Northern Ireland?
When the Secretary of State has explained that point, he may then like to move on to the second question. Why will Scottish bankers and lawyers get their four-year courses for £,000 of fees, whereas Scottish doctors and dentists will have to pay £4,000 of fees? The position is not entirely clear to the British Medical Association, but it seems clear enough from the press release issued by the Scottish Minister for Education and Industry that Scottish doctors and dentists will pay £4,000 for their course, whereas Scottish bankers and lawyers, who are not noticeably less well paid than Scottish doctors and dentists, will pay £3,000 for their course. I look forward to hearing the explanation of United Kingdom policy from a United Kingdom Minister to the United Kingdom Parliament.
I have a third question—

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dorrell: I have a third question for the Secretary of State, after which I will give way to my hon. Friend.
When the Secretary of State has finished giving the answers to my first two questions, he may then explain why the course that costs the Scottish student £3,000 and the student from England, Wales or Northern Ireland £4,000 is available to the citizens of southern Ireland and every other European Union country for £3,000. That is the pièce de ré00sistance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Perhaps the Secretary of State can say the same phrase in Spanish, in Portuguese or in Greek to demonstrate how truly communautaire he is being.


It is an odd policy that requires English students, Welsh students and Northern Irish students to pay £4,000 in fees at Scottish universities for a four-year course when students from every other country in the European Union get the same service for £3,000. I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State explain the objective of this aspect of United Kingdom Government policy.

Mr. Swayne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the Secretary of State for Scotland was asked precisely that question not half an hour ago, he replied that he would not have to explain it to Germans or Greeks, because they understood the obligations of the European Union? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Education and Employment could explain to students from Ringwood, Lymington and New Milton why they will be charged an extra £1,000 that will not be charged to Greeks or Germans.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend puts his point vigorously, and he is entirely right. It is the same question. if it is good enough for the constituents of some Member of Parliament from southern Portugal, why is it not good enough for the constituents of my hon. Friend in Ringwood?
The effect of the Government's policy on Scottish universities is already clear. The Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals has warned:
faced with the prospect of paying 33 per cent. more in fees in Scotland, English and other UK students will simply stay away.
That is not only the view of higher education principals but the experience of the dean of admissions of St. Andrews university, who said:
We have been getting a steady flow of cancellations in the last few weeks and the number is growing. Since the start of the week, we have been getting calls from English students to tell us that they aren't even going to bother coming to see us.
That is what is happening in the Scottish university system because of the Government's policy. I look forward to hearing why they think that it is the right policy.
The problem of declining admissions is not confined to Scotland. We have already seen Universities and Colleges Admissions Service figures showing early applications to universities throughout the United Kingdom down by 12 per cent. That reduction in early applications to British universities as a whole reflects the uncertainty and malaise that has settled over higher education policy since the Secretary of State came to the House in July.
The Dearing report was a major missed opportunity. It was a chance to address the issues facing the higher education system in a serious way. The Opposition agree that we need continued growth in the higher education system, and that we need a more flexible system that responds to the different demands of students; a system in which students fairly contribute an element of the cost of growth; and a system that is fair to students from low-income backgrounds. In his anxiety to rush out his response, the Secretary of State has bungled those issues, and bungled them badly. He should have offered a considered response; he has wholly failed to do so.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

welcomes the decisive response of Her Majesty's Government to the report of the National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education and to the crisis of funding in higher education bequeathed by the previous administration; notes with approval the new arrangements for supporting students, including fair repayment arrangements and targeted help for the most disadvantaged; and welcomes the commitment to ensuring that more people will have opportunities to participate in high-quality education to their benefit and to the benefit of the country as a whole.
The shadow Secretary of State has the barefaced cheek to have served in a Government who cut, on average, 25 per cent. per student from university funding over the past eight years alone, who cut 40 per cent. from the funding available for maintenance for students over the past eight years alone, and who oversaw the collapse of direct funding into research, teaching, equipment and the infrastructure of our university system; and, six months after losing office, to criticise this Government for taking difficult but necessary decisions.
The previous Government at least set up the Dearing committee in the feeble recognition that there was a problem, even if they were not prepared to face up to it. We signed up to Dearing precisely because we were prepared to face up to reality. The problem is that the Opposition are suffering from two diseases: internal fission leading to impending political disintegration, and chronic amnesia, which means that they forget 18 years of what they were up to while they were the Government.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: In a moment.
This is the new political animal that hibernates during the summer and comes out in the depths of winter, covered by darkness, blinking into the shadows, continuing in obscurity, unable to distinguish real decision taking in government from the dithering of opposition.

Mr. Bercow: I should like to test just how the Secretary of State fares on the amnesia count. Is he prepared now, on the record, to acknowledge that the expansion of higher education under the previous Conservative Government was dramatically greater than any that occurred under the Labour Administration between 1974 and 1979? Does he acknowledge that fact or does he seek to deny it?

Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that, even before the election, I gave the previous Government credit for their one commendable action in respect of higher education—to open up access, which they subsequently sealed by introducing a cap that stopped students entering university even if they had the required standard and capacity to do so.
On the back of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I should like to welcome the conversion of the shadow Secretary of State and his party. I was delighted to hear his announcement this afternoon that they are in favour of the continued development of the university sector. In other words, the Conservative party is now committed to expansion—first, to overturn the policy that it followed for the past four years, which put a cap on university entrance and, secondly, to overturn the evidence that the previous Government gave to the Dearing committee to the effect that expansion should be blocked, so no extra money would be required to fund universities as the answer was retrenchment.


I am delighted to demonstrate that my amnesia is more than matched by that of the shadow Secretary of State this afternoon. Let me spell out one or two examples of what we have done. Of course we made a statement on the back of the publication of the Dearing report on 23 July, not merely because parliamentary procedure and practice demanded that we did so, but because it was necessary to ensure that students, universities and those engaged in the admissions process were aware of our policies for 1998. Had we not done so, we would have lost a whole year. Even on existing accountancy rules, we would have lost £100 million in 1999–2000, never mind the opportunities provided by the imaginative programme that I have announced for 1998–99. Let me say a word or two about that, given that I have been challenged on the so-called memorandum within my Department.
On 23 September, we announced that we would allocate £165 million to the higher education sector. We did not announce that the entire sum would simply be handed over to the universities, but we announced that £125 million—£27 million more than Dearing recommended would be required to ensure that savings of more than 1 per cent. would not be demanded—would go directly to the institutions.
The rest will be spent on carrying out the policies that I am delighted to reiterate this afternoon. They include ensuring that disabled students are no longer means-tested and will receive an additional grant for the special needs that they have in terms of equipment, reading and so on. We shall begin the process of providing equity between full-time and part-time students by ensuring that part-time students who fall out of work can apply for an additional contribution towards their fees so that they can continue their studies.
We said that we would find £10 million to provide bursaries for postgraduate teacher training and that we would double the access funds to prevent students in hardship from having to drop out of their courses. I am proud to have agreed to the doubling of access funds as that is the beginning of the process of tackling directly the inequality and injustice of the present system which, as the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) pointed out, has resulted in 77 per cent. of better-off students getting into university compared with abysmal figures in respect of those from the less well-off bracket of society.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will students' supplementary allowances continue to be in the form of a grant, or will they become a loan that is repayable?

Mr. Blunkett: The additional allowance that we have agreed to make in order to overcome hardship—the extra £250 a year, for which we do not appear to have gained as much credit as I had expected—will be part of the overall loan system. That loan system results in families not having to find more than they currently have to find, because the maintenance and fees elements are bolted together imaginatively to ensure that that is so. The doubling of access funds ensures that provision will be made directly available for those in greatest hardship.
When we publish our lifelong learning consultation White Paper in a few months' time, I look forward to being able to spell out in more detail our

recommendations backing up the proposals of the Dearing inquiry for a radical programme of opening up access for socio-economic, geographic and cultural minority groups that have suffered from an inequitable system in the past.

Mr. Welsh: May I draw to the Minister's attention my great concern that supplementary allowances being in the form of a loan might act as a massive time bomb in the further education system? It would deter anybody with parental responsibilities—mature students, for example—from undertaking studies. That threatens great potential harm to the entire further education system, so I hope that the Minister will take those concerns on board.

Mr. Blunkett: The difficulty is that further education students are currently denied the opportunity of contingent loans, never mind grants; therefore the contribution made by 2 million adult further education students across the United Kingdom is inequitable in relation to full-time undergraduates. That is one of the issues that we seek to address. We have said that higher national diploma students currently in their courses will not be disadvantaged. In addition, a proportion of the money—£1 million from the £165 million—will be allocated next year to ensure that they are not disadvantaged.
Out of the £165 million £125 million will go directly to the institutions, with the remaining £40 million spread between investment in ensuring greater equity of access, overcoming anomalies, ensuring that disabled students receive grants and not loans to cover their special needs and are not means-tested, and ensuring that part-time students are treated equitably. That is a major package, which I would have expected the shadow Secretary of State to welcome—especially because, on 23 July, he suggested that there would be no new money for universities. He said:
simply another vague promise that will be delivered some time or never".—[Official Report, 23 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 952.]
The "some time" took us two months from 23 July—two months to deliver £165 million, which the university sector as a whole has welcomed. Let me make it clear that the resources we are identifying will be delivered for lifelong learning for all those who can take advantage of it in further as well as higher education, so that we can bring about equity, invest in our future and take on the challenge of a knowledge-based society for a new century.
I should also put straight the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). He might have been able to get the figures for income-contingent repayment on the internet only from 3 October, but I published them—as I did the £165 million package—on 23 September. In fact, I referred to those figures in my speech to the Labour party conference in Brighton on 1 October, in which I spelt out that a student on £17,000 would be repaying only £12 a week, compared with £129 a month under the current loans system. How I could refer to those figures on 1 October when I did not publish them until three days later I do not know. This is just cloud cuckoo land. The so-called confusion or lack of information comes from people taking extraordinarily long holidays and being unable to catch up with the newspapers until it is too late.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if the information was available. However, under his proposals, a student studying for four years in London will, at today's prices, take out a loan in excess of


£16,000. If that student marries another student, the couple will start their married life with a debt of £32,000. If they are on average earnings, how long will it take them to pay back the loan? Is not such an appalling debt the reason why nobody is coming forward to become a student teacher?

Mr. Blunkett: The previous Government introduced a mortgage-type loan scheme that demanded draconian repayments of up to £129 a month over five years as soon as the trigger came. We propose an income-contingent loan scheme, repayable over a lengthy period of up to 23 to 25 years, according to an individual's income. It is a progressive principle, espoused by all those—including my colleagues—who believe in the progressive principle of income tax. In that way, students will receive resources when they need them without an up-front top-up fee payment, and will pay back when they can afford it. I am happy to produce other figures and put them on the internet so that everyone can share them.

Mr. Bruce: 1: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but he appears to miss the essential point: the debt will be at least doubled under his proposal.

Mr. Blunkett: This may have arisen from a misunderstanding by the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The figures do not involve a doubling. Students in London must already pay back an increased loan. That was part of the previous Government's grant reductions, which is why I find the shadow Secretary of State's eulogy in respect of grants a bit difficult to take. The previous Government eroded grants year after year: 10 per cent. followed by 10 per cent. followed by 10 per cent.—a 40 per cent. real-terms cut in the amount available in grant. It has been instructive this afternoon to see the shadow Secretary of State say that he whole-heartedly agrees with a non-means-tested £1,000 contribution to fees.
I wish to explain clearly what we have done. We have Dearing-plus. We have Dearing plus our manifesto, which spelt out clearly what we would do in terms of income-contingent repayment for maintenance, but we have changed the Dearing recommendation by exempting those who are worse off from having to pay the fee. We have ameliorated the system for those in the middle-income bracket and we are asking the better-off to pay the £1,000, which they will repay over a period, based on their ability to pay.

Mr. Willis: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), whom I had the pleasure to hear on my local radio station demonstrating in my great city on Saturday.

Mr. Willis: It was a pleasure to entertain you, Secretary of State. One of the real issues, to which you started to allude, is that of getting resources into our universities. You made the point about—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.

Mr. Willis: I am sorry. The Secretary of State made the point about—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is now correcting himself.

Mr. Willis: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Secretary of State said that £165 million extra will go in next year. He has made it clear that his policy is Dearing-plus. The Dearing report made it clear that we needed £350 million next year and £575 million the year after to save our universities from collapse. Would the Secretary of State be kind enough to square those two issues, because I do not understand how £165 million bridges the gap which Dearing said desperately needed to be bridged?

Mr. Blunkett: I have not pretended for a minute that we have found for the coming year the amount of money that Sir Ron Dearing had in his checklist. I do not duck that issue at all. We have identified resources from our own Budget, in imaginative ways that previously were not available, which fall within the Government's overall control totals, and which allows us to get the programme into being from September 1998, and immediately to trigger in from 1999 onwards the savings—and therefore the income—which otherwise would not be available.
If we were not doing that, we would lose £100 million in 1999, increasing to £800 million in 2005–06, even under present accountancy procedures. If we moved to resource accounting, the sums would come much earlier, in terms of just over £1,000 million by 2002–03. This is the programme for raising the resources to lift the cap, to open up access, to target under-represented groups, to give opportunity to those who are denied it and to invest in lifelong learning and the knowledge-based society of the future.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for drawing attention to the interesting division that exists between Conservative Members in their policy on this issue. We have a policy from the shadow Secretary of State, we have a policy from the candidate in the Winchester by-election, and we have a policy from those hon. Members who should know better, who have experience in these areas, such as the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). Responding to my statement of 23 July, he said:
I congratulate the Government on the statement … the Government have taken a courageous decision, which should be supported by everyone who has universities' interests at heart.
He was an ex-Education Minister, so he would at least have some idea.
Even the forthright right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the immediate ex-Minister in the Department, said:
I welcome the general thrust of the Dearing report and much of what the Secretary of State said".
What about the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor)? He said:
The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on grasping some of'
Dearing' s
radical aspects, including the deferred contribution of students to tuition fees."—[Official Report, 23 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 955-61.]
I know that there are several Conservative parties on the issue of monetary union and Europe in general. I had not realised, however, that there are three, not two, Opposition parties on the issue of student maintenance and student fees. I do not know what the policy of the former hon. Member for Winchester, Mr. Malone, would be if he were elected for Winchester. I do not know whether he would have a free vote on that issue,


or whether, if he were co-opted to the shadow Cabinet immediately, it would be demanded of him that he change his mind only when the Leader of the Opposition changes his mind, and never if the ex-Chancellor and ex-Deputy Prime Minister lead him astray. I do know that the shadow Cabinet will remain a shadow for a very long time to come, because it is in a shambles.

Dr. Lynne Jones: It would be interesting to know whether Conservative Members accept Dearing's recommendation on the move to resource accounting. In that regard, I wish my right hon. Friend good luck in his negotiations with the Treasury because, as he admitted, beyond 1998–99, unless there is a change of that nature, we shall have difficulty in giving the extra resources to universities, the £165 million that Dearing recommended—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that speeches have been limited today to 10 minutes for Back Benchers because time is very limited. That means that all interventions should be extremely brief.

Dr. Jones: May I briefly ask my right hon. Friend what his projections are for 1999–2000? As he is aware, the extra £165 million was obtained by rephasing student loans.

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her good wishes and support in this matter. I have indicated that the immediate yield from the new proposals would have been £50 million in 1999–2000 from Dearing and £100 million under our proposals. We are discussing with colleagues in the Treasury a plan to enable us to ensure that the universities are not disadvantaged and that—as I am sure that hon. Members would want—further education is supported and enhanced as well. It is very important that, in the wider debate, we see higher education in terms of lifelong learning, which has been grossly neglected.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, before he ends his speech, or my hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, give us the latest position on the financing of the four-year Scottish honours course, which greatly bothers Stuart Sutherland, the vice-chancellor of Edinburgh university, and many others in Scottish education?

Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Industry, in winding up this afternoon's debate, will respond directly on issues relating to the decisions taken by the Scottish Office, but—

Mr. James Wallace: rose—

Mr. Dorrell: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: I shall finish my sentence and then give way to the shadow Secretary of State. We are talking about the 25 per cent. of students who would have had to pay the full premium, because others would have had it ameliorated or alleviated anyway; and we are talking

about a situation in which A-level students from England or Wales, not wholly but substantially, find themselves able to enter the second year of university courses in Scotland.

Mr. Dorrell: First, can the Secretary of State confirm that the number of students going from England to Scottish universities and claiming exemption from the first year of a four-year course on the ground of their A-levels is 10 per cent. of all the English students entering Scottish universities? Secondly, does he accept that it is not good enough to say that his hon. Friend the Scottish Office Minister will deal with the matter when he winds up? The Secretary of State is the United Kingdom Education and Employment Minister. We are talking about students who live in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and it is for the Secretary of State to explain why, on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends, he supports a policy that discriminates against his constituents.

Mr. Blunkett: I can now see why the right hon. Gentleman got himself into such a tangle when he went to Scotland before the general election, to talk about constitutional issues. The Scottish Office is responsible for the university sector in Scotland; that is the historic difference in terms of responsibilities for education in our country. That was before the referendum, of course; it has nothing to do with proposals for further decentralisation and devolution, welcome although they are. That is why I referred to my hon. Friend the Scottish Office Minister responding at the end of the debate.
However, I have explained the position. Many more students than those who currently take up the option of entering in the second year could, would be able to and I hope will, take advantage of that option, given that highers—I realise that they have now changed to "higher stills"—and A-levels were and are different. This afternoon we are discussing a package of measures addressing equity, access, the unfairness that has existed and investment in the future of our higher education and lifelong learning system.

Mr. Wallace: Although the Minister for Education and Industry is responsible for Scottish universities, the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to local authorities for student awards and student payments made by students in England and Wales who attend Scottish universities. The Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals is expressing considerable concern that the change might frighten away a number of students from England and Wales, to the extent that it says that it could threaten the survival of courses, departments and even, in the long run, whole institutions. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that that matter should be looked at again in terms of English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students attending Scottish universities?

Mr. Blunkett: I shall address myself entirely to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He asks whether there is fear, and there is. 1 want to confront that fear head on. Fear is generated by misunderstanding about what the Government will introduce. There is fear among those who believe that they will have to pay top-up fees, when we have explicitly ruled them out. There is fear among people who believe that they will have to find the money immediately rather than paying it back over a


lengthy period according to their incomes. Many fears have been whipped up. Even those who have the best intentions in seeking to oppose our proposals are contributing to the danger that young and mature students who were contemplating attending university next year may now not do so.
I have written letters to all students in colleges, in further education, sixth forms and tertiary colleges—which will be delivered in the next few days—advising them of the Government's true proposals and asking them to take up places as they had intended. We ask those students to acquire the resources that will enable them—through the higher average earnings that higher education leavers achieve—to pay a contribution that will enable a future generation to enjoy the benefits and the privileges of higher education. What they have now, others will have in the future.
We seek to open access to new groups that have been denied it by targeting particular socio-economic, cultural and geographic groups. We appeal to people to take up the challenge to invest in their future and to ensure that both they and the nation gain in the approaching new century.

Mr. Don Foster: There is clearly much disagreement in the Chamber about the Government's proposals for the future funding of higher education. However, it is important to place on record the fact that there is also much agreement.
I hope that all hon. Members welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of an additional £165 million for education and the uses to which that money will be put. I hope that all parties agree that there is a significant measure of support for many of the proposals in the Dearing report, and we should be pleased that the Government have accepted them. We should also support the Government's proposals to introduce a new, fairer income-contingent loan scheme. Perhaps most important, I hope that all hon. Members welcome the expansion of higher education in recent years, from an elitist system for 5 per cent. to a mass 30 per cent system. We must surely welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to lift the cap and increase the number of students in both further and higher education.
I hope that we might also agree that the expansion of further and higher education was seriously underfunded by the previous Government. The Secretary of State has already referred to some relevant figures. For example, four fifths of our universities have obsolete or inadequate teaching equipment, and one in six students drop out, many because of problems associated with poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) referred to Sir Ron Dearing's finding that universities will need £350 million next year and £565 million the year after merely to stand still. I hope that we also agree that there is an urgent need to widen access to universities and to attract more people from under-represented groups—particularly those from less well-off backgrounds and from certain ethnic minority groups.
If we agree on all of those points, we can surely agree that the tests of whether the Government's proposals—or

any other proposals—are right are: will they truly widen access; will they provide much needed urgent funds to our universities in order to meet the current crisis; and will they avoid creating additional problems and inequalities in the system? Sadly, I believe that, in relation to the Secretary of State's proposals, the answer to all three questions is no.
First, as to whether the proposals will widen access, I understand the Government's argument that those from lower socio-economic groups and certain ethnic minority backgrounds are particularly averse to debt. Therefore, while introducing fees, the Government propose to means-test parents and offer lower fees and greater maintenance loans to the less well-off. I understand the reasons for it, but I believe that the Government's approach is fundamentally wrong.
Means testing is socially regressive. The Liberal Democrats believe that, from the age of 18, everyone should be treated as an independent adult. After all, at 18, people are old enough to vote, marry, drive and even to die for their country. However, when it comes to being assessed for paying for their university education, people are treated like little children. It is the students, not the parents, who benefit directly from higher education. Therefore, the students should contribute to their education from future earnings rather than from the family's current earnings. Means testing is good for the factory worker's son, who pays no fees, gets a higher maintenance loan and goes on to a highly paid job in the City. However, it is not so good for the managing director's daughter who becomes a social worker. The system is simply not fair.
More important, I believe that means testing is wrong because it misunderstands the nature of under-representation in higher education. Those from less well-off backgrounds tend not to attend university simply because they do not stay on in education after age 16. Therefore, the key to widening access to higher education is not means-tested fees, but boosting the staying-on rate post-16.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I have some sympathy with it. The fact is that, according to Barclays' student survey, on average, parents give £631 to their children at university in excess of the parental contribution. It is clear that students from poor families are not receiving that money, so those from affluent backgrounds are receiving far more than £631. The reality is that rich families will not allow their children to start off life in debt, but poor families have no choice.

Mr. Foster: I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady's view. I do not think that anyone can remove all the inequalities in society. It is a great pity that the hon. Lady makes that point yet supports a Government who are not prepared to change income tax regulations. We proposed helping to remove inequality by increasing the upper rate of income tax in order to support those who are less well off. I am delighted to see that the hon. Lady supports that move, even if her colleagues do not.


The second test is: will the proposals provide extra funds to meet the current crisis in education? The answer is again no. The current loans system will not begin to make savings until 2015. However, the admittedly better income-contingent scheme proposed by the Secretary of State will not make a cumulative saving to the Treasury until 2092. Worse still—I do not think that this point has been picked up elsewhere—the new scheme may increase public spending because students will need to borrow more and a better repayment system will encourage them to do so.
At present, 63 per cent. of students take up the option of a student loan. If that figure increases to 90 per cent., for example, lending will increase by £375 million. Furthermore, if 100,000 of the Prime Minister's additional 500,000 students go into higher education, that 10 per cent. increase in students will require a 10 per cent. increase in funding for our universities, which will amount to another £700 million. We do not know where that money will come from, and the Government's proposals do nothing to solve the immediate crisis.
My third question is: will the proposals avoid other problems and inequalities? Sadly, the answer is again no. As the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, we have witnessed the chaos regarding the gap year students, where there were all the signs of the Government's hastily cobbling together a set of proposals. I warn the Secretary of State—I am delighted to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), is by his side—that the problem in relation to gap year students continues. Even in the Government's latest publication, the Secretary of State says that he will write to all students about his proposals. I hope that when he does so, he will put right an error in his own document. The latest document states:
'Gap year' students starting in the 1998/99 academic year whose places have been confirmed by 1 August 1997 will be treated as other students starting in the 1997/98 academic year.
The Secretary of State surely recalls, however, that the A-level results were not even out by 1 August, so not a single place could have been confirmed. The Secretary of State looks puzzled. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will pass him a copy of the letter that he has been sending to many worried parents about that, in which the Under-Secretary puts right the omission in the Secretary of State's document.
Other problems that have arisen show that Ministers are creating policy on the hoof—for example, the recent decision on the discounted fee rate for trainee teachers, and the different discounted rate for trainee doctors and dentists. Perhaps the best example of all is the one raised by the shadow Secretary of State concerning the Scottish students, although I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that his defence of the European Union during his remarks on that may well oblige him to consider leaving the shadow Cabinet.
As the shadow Secretary of State rightly pointed out, Scottish students in Scottish universities get their fourth year free, as do students from other EU countries, but not students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Presumably they have opted out of the EU. The position was beautifully summed up by one Scottish principal, who said that an Umbrian from Italy would pay £1,000 less than a Northumbrian from England. That is the real confusion.
The problems are not over, and the Secretary of State will have to address them. On the question of up-front fees with no loan, what happens when parents fail to make up the contribution as, sadly, many do? Will there be court cases like the one currently going on in Scotland, in which a student is suing his mother? While they wait for the court judgment, will students be out on their ear? Will our universities have to set up huge debt collection departments?

Mr. Blunkett: I am intervening so that we do not start with the hares running. The balance that we have achieved between the maintenance and the fee structure is such that people are not being asked to contribute more as a result of the means testing of the family than they do at present. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would concede that that is the case, and that therefore we are not imposing some additional, theoretical burden that makes it more difficult for families to contribute than it is at present.

Mr. Foster: I concede that point to the Secretary of State, but the mechanism for the collection of the money is now quite different. There is an additional layer of bureaucracy, with the student being responsible for making that payment, in addition to the local education authority fee contribution. That increase in bureaucracy concerns me.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will intervene and clarify another matter relating to the EU regulations. As he knows, we must treat all our EU partners the same. That means, presumably, that we must have a mechanism for checking on parental incomes for means-testing purposes—for example, the income of the doctor in Dortmund or the fishmonger in Frankfurt. Can the Secretary of State tell the House how he intends that to take place?

Mr. Blunkett: No, I am not answering questions.

Mr. Foster: The Government's plan seemed to be that they would hit the ground running, but if they want to do that, they should plan the route first.
The proposals for means-tested tuition fees fail all the tests, and they are profoundly wrong in principle. My party believes that education should be free and available to all. The Secretary of State knows that many in his party and in the Trades Union Congress agree with me. The Secretary of State rightly picked up my comments about Mr. Gerry Malone in Winchester, then cited various other Tory Members who disagreed with Tory policy, but he should not forget that there is equal division within the ranks of the Labour party.
At the recent Labour party conference, several constituency Labour parties tabled motions against tuition fees. Many Labour Members know that fees are wrong. Some spoke out at the rallies on Saturday. Some have signed early-day motion 361 calling on the Government to abandon their proposals. The recent Hams opinion poll discovered that 45 per cent. of Labour Members opposed fees, 12 per cent. did not know and only 34 per cent. were in favour of the Government's proposals.

Ms Margaret Hodge: Is the hon. Gentleman contradicting what he said in 1995 in a Liberal


consultation paper on higher education, and later in 1996 in Liberal Democrat News where he stated:
Leaving aside the extra resources that we want to spend on other areas of education… such an approach"—
which is an approach not means-tested—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady is one of those who is seeking to speak later. This is not helping the debate along. Will she bring her intervention quickly to a close?

Ms Hodge: I have been told to ask the hon. Gentleman: is he not a hypocrite?

Mr. Foster: It is frightening how the Labour party has to operate. It asks various hon. Members to ask questions, but does not give them a proper briefing. If the hon. Lady had done her homework, she would know that 18 months ago the Liberal Democrat party changed its policy position. We did it openly and honestly, in a public debate within our party. We made it clear in the resolution that we passed at that time, which I will quote to the hon. Lady, that we would
provide state funding for tuition fees for all courses up to and including first degree level, including"—
as, sadly, her party will not do—"
part-time courses.
I am not a hypocrite. I am someone who is willing to change his mind when he discovers that he has got it wrong.
Of course the Liberal Democrats believe that our universities need extra funding. There are three beneficiaries—the state, employers and the student. We believe that all three could pay a little more. Students should pay more, through the remaining maintenance grants being turned into loans, as the Government propose, but not through fees. Employers could pay a little more into the system, and the state could do so too, out of general taxation.
Our proposals for a three-way funding partnership have widespread support. They would help to widen access, provide much needed money immediately and avoid the numerous problems that the Government are creating. They would also end the divide between part-time and full-time students.
There is another way in which additional funds for our universities could be found—by changing the current inappropriate accounting rules for student loans, which treat lending as spending. If we can instead treat the element of student loans that will be repaid, less administration and subsidy costs, as an investment in the creation of human capital, we could put that money on to the public sector borrowing requirement and reduce the money in the departmental control total, thereby freeing money to be spent on education.
I know that the Secretary of State has been pressing hard for that change. We give him every support to achieve that. We applaud him for the work that he is doing, but I cannot applaud his stance on means-tested tuition fees. They are a charge too far. They are a student poll tax, and we oppose them.

Helen Jones: I am pleased that the Opposition have given us the opportunity to debate such a vital issue. It is sad that more Opposition Members could not be with us.
The funding of higher education is important not just to individuals, but to our community. It determines our economic health and our cultural wealth. We ask higher education institutions to do two things: to provide us with intelligent and adaptable men and women, who can solve the country's problems and modernise our industries, and to ensure that they have a broad educational experience which promotes personal development.
If our universities are to do that effectively, they must draw from the widest possible pool of talent. Sadly, that is not always the case. Too many of our students leave education far too early. The result is not only a tragedy for those involved, whose opportunities and life chances are restricted as a result; it represents an economic disaster for the country. Any proposals for student finance must be judged in that context, and those making those proposals must answer two vital questions: do they improve access to higher education and do they safeguard standards? Neither the system that the Opposition put in place nor the Dearing proposals alone satisfy those tests.
It is longer than I care to remember since I first went to university. When I did, none of my neighbours knew or understood where I was going or what I could expect there. It is shameful that the same would be true today. Despite the increase in student numbers which the Opposition have rightly mentioned, it is true that throughout the 1990s the increase among socio-economic classes A to C was more than double that among classes D and E, whose members are in any event less likely to participate.
Anyone who doubts the result of that statistic should speak, as I did recently, to a headmaster in my constituency who was trying to persuade one of his talented pupils, who was destined to get good examination results, to go to university. Her aim in life was to get a job in an office. Research tells us that that pattern is repeated throughout the country. The major disincentive to students staying on in higher education is the desire to go out and earn money.
The system that the Conservative party promoted when it was in government makes the position worse because it forces many students to be reliant on their parents not just while in education but afterwards. Students must pay back their loans over five years at a time when graduate incomes are at their lowest. Implementation of the Dearing report would not improve that situation because it would require repayments to be made when an income reached £5,000. It would also require all students, including the very poorest, to pay tuition fees. Students from lower-income families would thus be faced with a major disincentive.
Parents cannot subsidise students from such families when they graduate. There is no money in the bank from which they can draw. Graduates from these families must earn their own keep, and under that system many people are concerned about how they would keep, feed and clothe themselves. No wonder that many such students choose to leave when they are 18.
We not only fail to attract many students from low-income families into higher education. As the Dearing report makes clear, there are major concerns


about standards throughout the country. The report refers to evidence of inconsistencies among external examiners. As a result, there is a reference to quality assurance agencies to maintain standards in our higher education institutions.
Anyone who has been in higher education recently cannot be surprised by what I have said. I returned as a mature student and I saw students who missed meals because they could not afford to eat properly. I saw students who could not keep up with their courses because they were working in the evenings. I saw libraries that were not properly equipped, with not enough books and, in one case, not even enough chairs. I saw overcrowded classrooms and out-of-date equipment. These are direct results of the Conservative party's cutting student funding by up to 25 per cent. per student. If we continue on the course that the Conservative party is proposing, in 20 years' time we shall face a shortfall of £2 billion.
How would the Conservatives square the circle? There are only two options open to them. Either they would have to increase taxes by as much as 3p in the pound or they would have to restrict student access. We do not need a crystal ball but merely to reflect on their past record to know which option they would prefer. That is why the motion represents crocodile tears from those who in the past have displayed crocodile teeth.
We shall put in place a system that protects the poorest students so that they do not have to pay tuition fees. We shall ensure that repayments are contingent on incomes. We shall ensure also that no parent has to pay more than he or she is paying now. The Opposition's proposals would not tackle student poverty, would not ensure security of funding and would not ensure a quality of education. Their proposals are a recipe for catastrophe. They would do nothing to improve access and nothing to help poor students. If we accept the motion we shall be failing the present generation of students and future generations. The motion offers a dead-end route, and I urge the House to reject it.

Mr. Graham Brady: The Secretary of State referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who described the right hon. Gentleman's decision as "courageous". That called to mind the excellent comedy programme "Yes. Minister". My recollection is that when Sir Humphrey used "courageous" in relation to his Minister's decision, he meant something quite different. Perhaps the Secretary of State should take that as a warning rather than a sign of encouragement.
I have nothing against the principle that students, when graduates, should pay something towards the costs of their education. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) talked about hypocrisy, but I would not want to use such a word. I remember clearly the strong opposition from the Labour party when the then Conservative Government introduced a modest system of top-up loans for students. Against that background, and given their record in office in the National Union of Students, when some were key figures in the opposition to the introduction of modest student loans by the Conservative Government, I find it remarkable that some Labour Members, who are not now in their places, are able to support the Government.
As I have said, I have nothing against the principle of students contributing something towards the costs of their education and, therefore, the introduction of some form of tuition fees. There is, however, an important distinction to be made, and that is that a tuition fee must relate to the education of the student. It must relate directly to what the undergraduate is receiving in terms of his or her higher education.
It is particularly disturbing—I know that this is the view of the university sector—that the Government have flatly refused to guarantee that the funding that is derived from the introduction of tuition fees will go to the institutions that are involved, to the universities at which individual students are studying. That raises serious questions about the Government's intentions. The higher education sector is rightly worried about that.
If the fee relates to the course and to the institution that the student is attending, what is the position of the Scottish universities? I believe that their circumstances and those of English students studying at them make clear the truth of the Government's policy, which is to introduce not tuition fees but a form of taxation that will be used merely to expand Government revenue. It will not be used necessarily to improve or fund the higher education sector.
That is wrong in equity and indefensible when put before those of our constituents contemplating going up to university, who may find themselves contributing £1,000 a year or, in the case of an English constituent going to a Scottish university, £4,000 over a four-year period. That is proposed on the pretext that they will be making a contribution to their education when in fact it will be a contribution to general Government revenue. I deprecate any such decision.
We have heard about resource accounting. There are accounting changes that can be effective, but it is clear that a political decision must be taken. Is there a political will to finance higher education or is there not? I understand that Government accounting is being debated between the Departments for Education and Employment and the Treasury. That does not remove the fact that public expenditure is public expenditure. If there is an increase in Government outgoings through the introduction of the proposed scheme, it must be accepted that that will count in terms of the public sector borrowing requirement.
The principle of fees is acceptable as long as they go towards the institutions where people are studying. What is not acceptable is where they are a feeble guise for the introduction of a tax that will impact on undergraduates and graduates. It is not acceptable if they are part of a massive, sweeping change in the overall package of student financial support. An important contrast can be drawn between the way in which the previous Administration introduced small top-up loans for students and what the current Administration are trying to do. The introduction of small top-up loans was a gradual approach.
My main concern at the effect that the Government's proposal will have on access is not necessarily the principle of what will he done, but the enormous shock effect of introducing an expensive new charge to students, through tuition fees, at the same time as abolishing the maintenance grant. There will be a massive increase in the debt that an individual contemplating going into higher


education will have to accept. The Government have to accept that, under those circumstances, many people will be deterred from entering higher education, particularly those from the lower socio-economic groups.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am most grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate.
Before I came to the House, I was editor of History Today, so I hope that the House will forgive me for having felt some small pride and privilege in making my own little piece of history on 2 May as the first-ever Labour Member of Parliament for Blackpool, South.
Blackpool and history have always been intertwined. Blackpool has played a central part in the popular culture, history and leisure of our country over the past 150 years. Blackpool's motto is "Progress". Blackpool has been a pioneering and innovatory town in municipal government for more than 150 years. It is worth remembering that its Victorian values introduced the first tuppenny tourism rate, gas and electricity on a municipal basis, the promenade and the tramways, which still work today, and, of course, the tower, with which every visitor to Blackpool is familiar.
It is a great boon to come before the House as the new Member of Parliament for Blackpool, South, because most, if not all, hon. Members will be familiar with the town through conferences. We have not one but three piers. We have a Golden Mile, where one can encounter such delights as "The World of Coronation Street" or "The Life and Times of Sooty". We have the pleasure beach, which for more than 100 years has been run by the same family and has a saga very similar to that of a Barbara Taylor Bradford novel. We have the Big One and the promise of a dark ride for the millennium, which should perhaps be referred to the Minister without Portfolio. We also have quieter pleasures in the form of Stanley park and Marton Mere, and, of course, the illuminations. We have millions of visitors. My constituency has more than 2,000 guest houses doing bed and breakfast—with a finer cooked breakfast than one will get in many of the grander hotels in North shore.
When I was a child and was taken by my parents on day trips from Manchester to Blackpool, to see such delights as Zola the Zombie—"She's alive, she's well, she's living in a goldfish bowl"—little did I think that one day I would represent that town. As I reflect on my good fortune, however, it is, of course, customary in the House to pay tribute to one's predecessor, and that I am very happy to do. My predecessor, now the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), was a chivalrous and courteous opponent when I stood against him in 1992, and the case work that I have inherited from him shows that he was assiduous and thorough, as would befit a lawyer with his training. However, I was not aware, until relatively recently, of his keen interest in eastern philosophy.
The Tory party has had a new leader since the general election, who we believe practises meditation techniques, but it is obvious that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath practised Hagueism avant la lettre. That he has returned to the House is clear evidence of that other piece of eastern philosophy, reincarnation. He has given the House proof positive of the transmigration of souls by reappearing as

the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I thank him for his contribution to bridging the north-south divide and offer him many long and happy years in his new constituency.
Blackpool is not all tourism and holidays. Many of my constituents work in industries outside the town—British Nuclear Fuels, ICI and British Aerospace, where many of them are engaged in the Eurofighter project—and in the civil service, in war pensions, disability living allowance and National Savings, Ernie and premium bonds, which has just celebrated 40 years. All those industries have faced strong challenges in recent years but have come through. At a time of discontinuity and market forces, it is as well to remind hon. Members on both sides of the House of the proud ethos of public service that Fylde civil servants have given over 50 years.
Blackpool is not all fun and candy floss. Behind the fronts of the streets, some housing conditions are positively Dickensian. Many people in Blackpool earn a poor salary. Seasonal unemployment is high—up to 20 per cent. Many of the young people who come to our town find that the streets are not paved with gold, and the problems of drug and alcohol abuse are severe. Nevertheless, I am enormously proud of the self-help, good humour, enterprise and hard work of my constituents. However, without a personal and social infrastructure to support them, their efforts to make progress and grasp opportunities will always be maimed. That is why education times three is at the heart of our project in government.
At home, I have a medal struck from the copper of Nelson's first flagship, Foudroyant, which was wrecked off Blackpool 100 years ago this year. That medal was given to my grandfather for being one of the top 10 schoolchildren in a Derbyshire elementary school, when he was 10. He wanted to be a teacher, but time, class and family circumstances meant that he spent his life as a boiler man, although I remember as a child the historical novels on his shelves, which may have stirred my interest in the subject.
A former leader of our party, when speaking about such people, said that they had been deprived of a platform, and that platform of empowerment in education is at the heart of new Labour's project. It does, of course, involve very hard choices. I must tell Conservative Members that there was never any golden age in the funding of further and higher education, and least of all under their Government.
I was the first in my family to stay on at school and go to university, and am well aware of how chance, good teachers and family encouragement helped me to come out of Oxford with a history degree. However, I am also aware that dozens of my contemporaries did not have that first, nor second, chance. The existing system of grants did nothing to, support or help them. Therefore, it ill befits the Opposition to come here today to don the cloak of concern and pretend that we are in year zero.
The Opposition speak of maintenance grants, but it takes some cheek to defend a system that they progressively devalued and cut away during their period in office. In any case, it is not a system that ever benefited all students. One of the fastest-growing areas in the past few years, as Dearing has said, is that of part-time students. For them, a maintenance grant, even tutorial fee support, was never an option. I remind the House that


the Conservative Government whittled away the voluntary grants that were available in their constant attack on local government funding.
As one who taught for 20 years as a part-time Open university tutor, I welcome the Government's opening moves to remedy Dearing's deficiencies in the report. I shall look to them to develop—perhaps with tax incentives—funding support to put part-time students, vocational and non-vocational, on a level playing field. The Government's response to Dearing is a responsible and realistic approach. It is one that is shared by the bodies concerned. I quote from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which says:
CVCP accepts that the proposed funding system is realistic and necessary to secure the future of higher education in the UK: CVCP particularly welcomes the introduction of the new income-contingent loans scheme for maintenance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) referred to the crocodile tears and crocodile teeth of the Opposition. I am equally not fooled by the crocodile waffle of Opposition Front Benchers, whose Government frittered years away when they had the opportunity to address the problems that the Labour Government now face. The Conservative Government were happy to see student numbers expand, but they did nothing to fund them. They did nothing in office to address the problem of pauperising students year by year.
It was not the Conservative party which created the Open university, admired worldwide as a great British contribution to education. It was not the Conservative party which came before the House with proposals for the Open college and the university of industry. It was not the Conservative party which proposed individual learning accounts which will help and enable people. It is the Labour party in government which has done and is doing those things. We do them as a debt to the dead, but we also do them as an encouragement to the living. We do them because it is part of our central project to enable, to empower, to excite and to energise all our people for the 21st century, in my constituency and throughout Britain. That is why education, education and education is central to our endeavours. That is why the Government deserve support today against the Opposition motion.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on his maiden speech. It was a great pleasure to listen to him. I have listened to him before today. He mentioned the towers of Blackpool and Millbank. In my memory are the towering spires of Oxford where we were together. I can tell that we shall have as many amicable differences in the future as we used to have in the past.
The issue before the House can readily be understood only if credit is given where credit is due. Of all the inheritances that the Conservative party handed on to the Government of the day on 2 May, no jewel shone brighter than that of higher education. As Professor Dearing pointed out, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development described our system of higher education as highly efficient. We may not have yet

achieved the highest levels of access to tertiary education, but we have achieved one of the highest levels of degree status.

Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the past 20 years—the cuts in the 1980s when the Conservative Government declared that there were too many students in universities, and the expansion that was declared to be market driven, only for the Government to discover that students were not studying what they wanted them to study; so they introduced quotas, then targets, then capping, then expansion again. They destroyed the whole structure of our higher education. We would have been in a far better state if they had not been so manic in their change of policies every year.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I cannot help noticing that those Liberal Democrats who have spoken so far are passionately against the Government's proposals. It will be interesting to see whether their leader resigns from his Cabinet Committee as a result. Is this yet another example of Liberal Democrats saying one thing while they do something completely different?

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. St. Aubyn: No, I shall not give way again for a while.
In Britain, almost twice as many go through the tertiary education system as in France, Germany and Italy. Not only is our system efficient, but it delivers results. Across the G7 economies, the proportion of gross domestic product put into research and development is an average of 2.1 per cent. In Britain it is 2.2 per cent.–1.5 times the proportion in Canada, nearly twice the proportion in Italy, and nearly the same as the proportion in France, Germany, Japan and the United States. Of course we want to be at the top of the league, but we are in there and we have a highly respectable place in it.
If there is a problem in the jewel that we passed on on 2 May, it is one of success. As has been acknowledged by representatives of all the parties who have spoken today, the Conservative Government widened access. It is that increase in access which has created the immediate problem of funding, which the Dearing report puts at £350 million a year.
The student loan book is growing at the rate of nearly £1 billion a year. Had the Government simply spent a short time working out how to unlock the value in that student loan book, they could have solved the immediate funding crisis at a single stroke and avoided this rush into a hasty judgment. They could have avoided tens of thousands having to give up their gap year and many more tens of thousands having a gap this year, next year and every year. As a result of the Government's actions, people will be deterred from entering further and higher education.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman alludes to an important issue which goes back to yesterday's debate. The sale of the student loan portfolio for this year of £1.6 billion and for next year of £1.5 billion, to which the hon. Gentleman correctly referred, was the Conservative


Government's policy. This Government picked up the legislation and got it through the House because it was in the tax and spend plans.

Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman is completely off beam because we are talking about the growth in the loan book, not the sale of the old loan book.
The Government propose to raise the typical graduate's debt on leaving university from an average of around £5,000 to £10,000, or even, in areas such as I represent, possibly as much as £15,000. Unlike the Conservative Government's changes to the system, which were phased in over a long period, the Government propose to introduce their changes at a stroke.
It is surely a measure of the mistake that the Government are making that they have created an enormous flaw in the system. There must be such a flaw when a student leaves university with a debt of £15,000 around his shoulders and yet the value of that debt in the Government's hands, whether it is retained on their books or sold to some third party, or whether they undertake accounting tricks, is not much more than £5,000 or £5,500. That is fundamentally a flaw and a mistake in what the Government are doing.
That flaw arises because, without thinking the matter through, the Government have chosen to allow the system that they inherited, which was designed for low levels of student loan, to grow into a mammoth system which lends a great deal of money but produces very little for the Government's coffers. It is rather as if a business decided to resolve a cash flow crisis by trebling its prices while at the same time giving such generous credit terms that its cash flow worsened. How little confidence we would have in such a business and how little confidence the House should have in such a Government.
Had the Government made some modest changes to overcome the immediate funding crisis, they would have had the time that they need. The Government need time. They need time to explain to us how they will control the level of fees. Dearing is specific about that. He proposes that an independent body, involving the institutes of higher education, should be persuaded before any change in the proportion of fees was approved. The Government propose such a change by a resolution of the House in which they have a vast majority.
As we have already seen, Labour Members have proved to have no conscience, changing their minds when they hear the buzzer of the Minister without Portfolio on their little machines, and dropping their opposition to tuition fees in one fell stroke. No doubt they would drop their opposition to changes in those fees if required to do so by the Treasury. Moreover, if students are to contribute more to the cost of their education, time is needed so that they benefit more.
The other major weakness of the proposals is that future benefits, such as quality assurance, will require time. We should help rural students to get an education that will cost them a great deal more, and we should try to change attitudes among those in their ninth and 10th years at school, because that is when attitudes must be changed if we are to encourage them to gain access to the system when they leave the sixth form. All those benefits will take time to feed through. The haste in which the Government want to implement their new policy will

deny us the time that is needed. It is a mistaken policy and will do great damage to the system of higher education that the Government inherited on 2 May.

Ms Margaret Hodge: The speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) shows the depths to which the Conservative party has sunk since the election. The Conservative Government set up the Dearing inquiry because they had created a funding crisis in higher education. Conservative Members now want to wash their hands and walk away. It seems that they are even more shameless in opposition than they were in government, or, as with Europe, that they have abandoned pragmatic good sense for the wilder extremes of knee-jerk opposition.
Let us consider the facts. It was the Conservative Government, not the new Labour Government, who left universities expecting a £3 billion hole in their funding by 2000. It was under the Conservative Government that vice-chancellors saw their per capita funding cut by a quarter since 1989. The new Government inherited a situation in which the universities are short of money and academic standards are threatened, in which students are poverty-stricken and ever more are dropping out, and in which expansion has been halted just when consensus had developed around the importance of education and training.
The current student finance arrangements are a mess, and everybody knows it. They have evolved through piecemeal change and through compromises with vested interests. The idea that there ever was a golden age of free higher education for all is a sham. Nothing has ever been done to help either part-time or mature students, whose numbers have tripled since 1980, who often come from the lowest-income households and for whom we want to improve access. They have always contributed to their higher education.
The Conservative Government expanded student numbers, but they failed to put in place either the funding or the necessary student finance arrangements. They tried to build a higher education system for the next century without pausing to lay the foundations. Their student loans system has been dogged by problems. Repayments are not related to income, so they hit poor graduates hardest.
When the facade began to disintegrate, what did the Conservative Government do? They froze expansion and ducked the difficult questions. They passed the buck to Dearing before the election, and have now disowned his recommendations.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Hodge: No, I will not, because of the shortage of time.
I cannot believe that the public will be fooled by the Conservative party's unprincipled scrabbling for votes. Labour Members are prepared to face the hard facts. In the long run, the taxpayer cannot meet the spiralling costs of a mass higher education system. We are spending more than £6 billion a year on higher education, yet it is not enough. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on finding an extra £165 million this year. It is


much needed, and the previous regime would never even have tried to help. In the long term, a more fundamental approach is required.
The Government have had the courage to grasp the nettle. Not only are they putting into effect their manifesto pledge on student maintenance, but they have had the courage to implement the Dearing recommendations and introduce tuition fees. They are putting in place a sensible system for funding higher education that is sustainable in the longer term. It will allow us to expand and extend participation to reach the target set by Ron Dearing in his report. That target is affordable, and will protect the quality standards that we value in our higher education institutions.
Income-contingent loans will mean fairer repayments for graduates. Payment will be based on ability to pay. The scare stories about higher levels of debt are misleading. Pay-back will be spread over a much longer period, and graduates will repay only when they can afford to do so. No student or parent will have to face up-front costs that are higher than those under the present system. Students from low-income families will not have to pay anything towards their fees.
I believe that the Government's proposals achieve the necessary balance between finding more money for post-18 education and protecting access. Although it is right that, to improve access, those from low-income families should not have to pay tuition fees, it is also right and fair that those who benefit from a university education should contribute towards costs.
Let us consider the difference between the position of graduates and that of non-graduates. In 1996–97, unemployment among graduates stood at 4 per cent., whereas unemployment among non-graduates was 8.2 per cent. Gross weekly earnings of non-graduates were £237, whereas graduates earned about £457 a week: a massive £220 difference.
I have one question for those who support the current system, or who advocate a return to the days of full grants. Is the money really being spent where it is most needed? The answer must be no. Fewer than 10 per cent. of university students currently come from a background where parents are unskilled or partly skilled, whereas two out of three come from the top two socio-economic class backgrounds. The current system ensures free education only for those who are already achievers, the majority of whom come from better-off families. That is unfair, inefficient and indefensible.
For too long, further education has remained the poor relation in the tertiary sector. Further education is vital if we are to make a learning society a reality. Two thirds of those who continue in post-18 education do so in further education colleges. A quarter of FE students pay their own fees, and most receive no financial support from the state for maintenance. We need to strike a new balance between higher and further education: one that recognises the importance of the FE sector, and that offers FE students a fair deal.
I urge my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to consider two further issues. The first is the means by which graduate repayments are collected. One of the reasons why the current student loans system

has been such a disaster is the bureaucracy involved in recouping the loans. It would be much simpler if repayments were collected through either the national insurance or the tax system. That would make it easier to track graduates, and would cut bureaucracy. It would also make the loans more secure.
Like other hon. Members who have participated in the debate, I want a change in the way in which student loans are dealt with in the public accounts. The current system treats grants and loans as the same, which is nonsense. It is true that student loans have to be funded initially by the Treasury, so they should come within the public sector borrowing requirement. But that is not straightforward Government spending. As Bill Robinson, the former Treasury official and adviser to the Treasury Select Committee and to a former Chancellor, said in evidence to the Select Committee on Education and Employment, not all lending is necessarily spending.
The Government will recoup a large percentage of this debt. Over time, only the interest subsidy and the bad debt will have to be met by the public purse. Most modelling suggests that most Government lending will be recouped. It therefore seems common sense that not all lending should be classified as spending for spending control total purposes.
That may seem an esoteric point, but it is not. If the accounts could be changed, it would allow the Government greater flexibility. It would allow them to use the money that they know that they will recoup to expand access and improve standards. I hope that my right hon. Friends will be able to examine that issue, which could do much to alleviate the short-term funding crisis facing universities.
The Government have been left to pick up the pieces that were left by the Conservative party. My right hon. Friends should be congratulated on the way in which they have responded to the Dearing report. In a few short months, they have tackled the problems that the Tories left to fester for years. The challenge for the Government was to reform the system to increase equity, provide the resources—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's time is up.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) accused the Tories of being more shameless in opposition than in government. Her party could be accused of exactly the opposite. In carrying out Tory policies, it seems more shameless in government than it was in opposition. The main issue in this debate is quite clear: Tory hypocrisy matched by Labour hypocrisy. The losers are the students of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Tories have some cheek to raise the issue of student hardship. They know their own abysmal record. The previous Tory Government did more than any to increase the financial pressure on our student population. The reality is made clear by the constantly rising student debt—now more than £4,000 for the average student—and the tragic rise in the drop-out rate, which is up by 12 per cent. since grants were frozen and loans were introduced.


Under the Tories, students faced a constant onslaught of personal cuts, lower grants and loss of housing benefit. For many students, university today is more about survival than about study. Getting to the odd job will become more crucial than missing the odd lecture. The Tories should be ashamed of their record and their backing of a large part of the Government's policy.
The Labour Government have cheated the electorate by promising education, education, education and delivering debt, debt and more student debt. The Government have acted on the Dearing report's recommendations by introducing tuition fees, but have blatantly ignored much of the rest of the report.
Dearing proposed that an additional £350 million be spent on higher education in 1998-99, but the Government refuse to spend much more than the Tories. The overall reality of the spending figures is less money for our universities, colleges and students. Dearing proposed the continuance of maintenance grants, but the Government, in their wisdom, have chosen to abolish grants, and in so doing have erected a financial barrier to the aspirations of potential students across the country.

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): To clarify the matter, is the hon. Gentleman endorsing the Dearing recommendations on tuition fees?

Mr. Welsh: The Scottish National party rejects tuition fees and wants to return to student grants. In an independent Scotland we would maintain the Scottish tradition from which the hon. Gentleman benefited. We are opposed to student loans and tuition fees. I am ashamed that our generation, which benefited from that grant system as part of the traditional education system Scotland, is imposing massive debt on future generations of students. It is something about which both he and I should be ashamed.

Mr. Wilson: Merely on a point of clarification, I take it that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman may have just led the House to believe, he is not endorsing Dearing on anything.

Mr. Welsh: Far from it, I was pointing to the parts of the Dearing report which the Government and the Opposition have chosen to introduce. I was also clearly and exactly pointing out to the Minister the SNP's view. In dividing the House last night, we were against not only the privatisation of student loans but student loans on principle. I recommend that the Minister returns to the traditional view of the Scottish education system from which we both benefited and which he is withdrawing from vast swathes of the Scottish population.
The Government claim that abolishing grants and introducing fees will not be a disincentive to students from low-income families entering universities, but the students and the universities know that that is not true. The prospect of a £15,000 debt will discourage many from considering higher education. Education should not be a privilege restricted to those who can afford to pay, but that is precisely what it will become if the Government go ahead with the proposals.
The Government have often promised to listen to the electorate. Although they seem happy to listen, they refuse to hear what is being said. Thousands of students

in cities throughout the United Kingdom protested at the weekend against the Government's higher education policies. Are the Government willing to listen to the voice of students or will they continue to ignore them as they have ignored the Dearing report?
The gaps and failings in the Government's plans are plain. Their proposals fail to take into account the position of mature students, especially those with family responsibilities. Will the Minister give a clear and absolute guarantee that students who claim supplementary allowances will continue to receive their grants—not as loans which they will be expected to repay? The Government's response, particularly with regard to further education, could cause enormous problems to that very important sector. Further education has tended to be ignored in comments and debates, yet it is the first stepping stone for many in returning to education or moving to higher education such as university. It is very important that students are not deterred from taking advantage of that first step on the ladder.
The Government's proposals are flawed. Why do proposals for the introduction of tuition fees continue to include a means-tested contribution when the principle of the loans system is that students are responsible for the cost of their higher education? Are the Government not admitting that fees will act as a disincentive to university entry, if not for the poorest people, for those who are just above the means-tested level? The motivation for the Government's policy is not better education but their on-going mission to save money. Theirs is a short-term approach at the expense of students and against the interests of the nation. The SNP believes that higher education is an investment in the future strength and wealth of our society. It is society which will lose out in the long run through the abolition of maintenance grants and the introduction of fees.
In the face of such education cuts, we can see the Government's true priorities. Over the past few months, they have squandered £210 million on the purchase of seven Trident missiles and the test firing of two others—another broken election promise. That £210 million could have removed the threat of tuition fees from Scots students for at least the next three years, restored student grants to 1990 levels for all Scottish students over the next four years, and restored housing benefit for the next eight years. I know what my priorities are and I am sad to see what the Government's have turned out to be. Education is not the Government's priority, given that they have squandered such precious resources on the ego-boosting but ultimately empty status symbol of the Trident weapons of mass destruction.
The weakness of the Government's proposals is best highlighted by one anomaly. Scottish-domiciled students studying in Scotland will pay for only three years of their four-year degree courses, while English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students will be forced to pay for the full four years. That will act as a clear disincentive to the thousands of non-Scottish United Kingdom students who have previously chosen Scotland for their higher education and threaten the £200 million spent by that group in the Scottish economy every year.
The Government must act to sort out the mess that they have created. The cost would be a mere £3 million to £5 million. I hope that the Minister will give a clear answer before this debate finishes. The House faces a choice: we can go down the road of ever-increasing loans


and higher financial barriers to student entry to higher education or we can invest in the future of our youth and our country. The SNP will give a full and detailed reply to the Dearing report. We have always said that education is a Scottish priority—a system open to all of ability irrespective of wealth or any other background factor. Ability, not the cheque book, should remain the determinant. The SNP stands by that traditional Scottish philosophy; I deeply regret that the Government do not.

Ms Sally Keeble: I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate, which is of great importance to my constituency. I wish to draw in particular from the circumstances of students in Northampton. My constituency contains both a higher education and a further education college. To both, issues of access and opportunity in education are especially dear.
The Opposition have made much of the recent growth in higher education, but—as often happens—it was growth without spread. It did not bring the participation in higher education by young people from low-income families that I and my hon. Friends would have liked and that would have made education one of the main ladders to personal aspiration and success. Most of the growth in student numbers has been from young people from families with higher incomes. Those from a more disadvantaged background are still held back. The figures given by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) illustrate that clearly.
In addition, compared with many of our competitors, participation of young British people in higher education still lags behind. It is no good for the Opposition to applaud themselves on the recent expansion of higher education when their 18 years in government left behind a system with a £2 billion funding crisis and an artificial cap on its expansion and without a breakthrough in the spread of benefits that could have transformed our society and the life chances of our young people.
It is especially wrong for the Opposition to pretend to champion the cause of low-income students. As a new Member, I have noted that whenever the Opposition come to the defence of any cause it is usually because of some vested interest that has no place in a modern society. That applies especially when we are discussing the chances of children and young people. For example, the Opposition defended the assisted places scheme, which we scrapped to provide funds to reduce class sizes for all children. They opposed the windfall tax, which will fund the new deal and give young people job chances. We now see their opposition to the Government's proposals to provide the expansion that we want to see in higher education.
The Government's proposals for the funding of higher education will ensure that young people from lower-income backgrounds are given appropriate support—and much more appropriate support than the measures behind the Opposition's weasel words. The Government's proposals for students from low-income families to be exempted from tuition fees will mean that many—probably most—of the students in my constituency will pay nothing at all. It has been calculated that 30 per cent. of students nationally will make no contribution to tuition fees.
In Northamptonshire, calculations based on the parental income of students applying to the county council for mandatory grants in previous years suggest that some 44 per cent. of students would not have to pay any tuition fees under the new scheme. In my constituency, full-time gross average earnings are £16,670, from which mortgage costs are deducted before there is any liability for tuition fees. Only 10 per cent. of the work force earns more than £27,000, which is well below the limit at which parents have to pay full tuition fees. If there is one message that the Government have failed to get across, it is the extent of the support that they are providing to students from middle-income as well as lower-income homes. I hope that the Secretary of State's letter will address some of the misunderstandings on that point.
The Opposition's emphasis on maintenance grants is perhaps because of their concern about full-time students doing a first degree straight after school. Increasingly, however, students are not recent school leavers doing full-time degrees. At Nene college in my constituency, 5,000 students aged under 21 do full-time degrees, but 4,250 mature students aged over 21 are financed completely differently and rarely benefit from maintenance grants. Half of those students are part-timers who already pay an average £600 a year in tuition fees, with no form of means testing.
The Government's proposals cannot be taken in isolation. They form a package that aims to ensure that we get the expansion needed in higher education. As part of that, I hope to see Nene college achieve university status. The only qualification on which it currently falls short is its research status and it should satisfy that criterion next year. After that, it need maintain its position for only three years to become a university. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), is to visit Nene college shortly and I trust that he will be impressed by the standard of the work that it does, including its work building links with local and business communities and extending opportunities to students from a wide range of backgrounds. All those issues feature strongly in the Dearing proposals. I hope that my hon. Friend will also ensure that the criteria for qualifying as a university are not changed before Nene college gets its chance to qualify and to make its contributions to extending the opportunities for young people to obtain university degrees.
In his opening remarks, the right hon. Member for Charnwood spoke about a shambles. The only shambles in higher education is the one of the previous Government's making. The proposals from the present Government will go a long way to resolve the problems and ensure that higher education becomes—as we all wish—an opportunity for young people to achieve all their hopes and aspirations.

Mrs. Theresa May: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. The Dearing report made a number of recommendations that cover various issues. Two key issues were the need to widen participation in and access to higher education, and funding in higher education. The Dearing report was not some fly-by-night, hastily put together report. It was the result of many months of careful research and analysis of the issues.


A carefully thought-through package of proposals was put before the Government. Sir Ron Dearing made it clear in his report, and when he came to give evidence to the Education and Employment Committee, that the proposals were a package, and that the Government should not cherry-pick from it by choosing some proposals and discarding others.
Given the careful analysis behind the Dearing report, the Government had a duty to consider carefully their response to it, especially as their response will affect the future lives of our young people.

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Lady is right to suggest that the Government should not cherry-pick from the Dearing report. Is she saying that, if she were in government, she would not cherry-pick, but would commit £350 million next year and £565 million the year after to higher education? If so, can she explain where she would find that money?

Mrs. May: The issue we are debating this evening is whether the people who are in government today are cherry-picking from the Dearing report.
We might also consider whether the Prime Minister understands his Government's response to the Dearing proposals. At Prime Minister's questions last week, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Prime Minister stated categorically that the Government were implementing the proposals from the Dearing report. When he was challenged on that point, he said that my right hon. Friend was wrong.
My right hon. Friend was not wrong, because the Government are not implementing the Dearing proposals. They have discarded Dearing and are doing exactly what Sir Ron Dearing suggested they should not. He said they should not take the package of proposals in the Dearing report, tear it apart and put the proposals back together in their own package.
The fact that the Government came up with an instant response to the report suggests one of two things. Either the Government make policy on the hoof—and given the importance of the issue to the future of young people, that would be reprehensible—or the Government had decided beforehand that they would introduce tuition fees and abolish maintenance grants. In that case, the Prime Minister's statement during the election campaign—
Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education"—
is another example of the Government's betrayal of the people of this country.
The Government have chosen to move away from Dearing in two particular respects. There is real concern that the Government's decision not to follow Dearing's proposal to introduce tuition fees while maintaining the maintenance grant, but rather to abolish the maintenance grant and replace it with loans will, far from widening access, narrow it.
Particular concerns have been expressed also by those who represent rural constituencies about the impact on students who traditionally have to go away from home to get higher education. It can be argued that students living in an area with a variety of higher education establishments close by could ease their financial burden by choosing to stay at home. That would be a mistake,

because the process of going away from home is part of the value of higher education. That opportunity is not open to many young people from rural parts of the country.
Another issue of concern about the Dearing recommendations is funding: here again we see the Government moving away from the proposals. The Dearing report was clear that resources produced from the introduction of tuition fees should go directly into the universities and higher education, but the Government have failed to confirm that. They give the impression that some money will be taken away from higher education and will go to other forms of education or—who knows?—into the Treasury pot.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) referred to a briefing produced by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, but did not refer to this comment:
The CVCP considers it essential that contributions from students towards tuition are ploughed back into universities and lead to a direct improvement in funding for teaching.
If nothing else, the Minister should make it clear whether the Government agree with that statement. Sir Ron made the point that, if students were paying tuition fees, the money would go into the universities which would be more careful in assessing courses. This would help to raise standards, as has been said tonight. People need to know the Government's intentions, and I trust that the Minister will provide the answer.
In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) referred to the absolute fiasco with regard to English students who go to Scottish universities. The Secretary of State said earlier that the reason why he chose to make a statement in response to the Dearing report was the need for clarity. We saw over the summer months an absolute fiasco concerning gap year students, and many families suffered uncertainty and worry. Students did not know what lay ahead, because the Government, frankly, failed to get their act together. Obviously, they had not realised that gap year students would be affected by the measure, which shows their incompetence.
We now have a second fiasco. English students will pay more to attend Scottish universities than Scottish, German, French or Italian students. A National Union of Students spokesman has said that this will "devastate" universities in Scotland which rely heavily on students from outside the country. St. Andrews university has said that it could have a marked effect on cross-border flow, and it may have a significant impact on the entire higher education sector, and not just on the successful importers of non-Scots university students.
The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), is here to respond to the debate. I trust that he will tell us that the Government have changed their mind and that English, Welsh and Northern Irish students will benefit from the same treatment to be given to Scottish, German and Greek students.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Thanks to the previous Government, we now have mass higher education in this country—well, that is the case for some groups. Sadly, and worryingly, that does not apply to


social groups IV and V, from which only 8 per cent. of young people go on to higher education. This is quite disgraceful, when one considers that that proportion is scarcely higher than the participation rate in my day, when only one in 10 went to university.
It is pleasing that the debate has concentrated on that issue, and that hon. Members realise what a waste of our national talent that represents and how we all suffer from the failure to ensure that all young people who are capable of benefiting from higher education get the opportunity to do so. That is the subject upon which I wish to concentrate, although I come to it from a slightly different perspective.
I do not want the present Government to finish with no improvement having been made to the present situation. I benefited from higher education and a full maintenance grant, and I did not have to pay any fees. I urge my colleagues to look again at what Dearing has said about access to higher education for the lower socio-economic groups.
I would like to draw the House's attention to another document, published around the same time as Dearing, by the Council for Industry and Higher Education. The report, by Hilary Metcalf, is entitled "Social Class and Higher Education: The Participation of Young People from Lower Social Classes". As one might expect, the report found that a major factor in the lower participation of people from lower-income groups arises because of their poorer educational achievements before higher education. That is an issue on which my Government are strong, and the White Paper "Excellence in Schools" has attempted to address that issue.
There are other factors which prevent young people from poorer backgrounds from going to university, and the report deals with them. Why do young people with the necessary qualifications to go to university not take up that opportunity? That is something that we should be addressing today. Sadly, the Government's proposals do not address the major recommendation in the report—that we should address the income differential between a young person going into work direct from school and a young person becoming a student.
If the Government's proposals are accepted, a young student will end up with greater debts than he or she would have done previously. It is true that the student will not have to pay a fee, but he or she will be poorer by the £2,000 that he or she will lose in maintenance grant—something that Dearing was strongly against. He saw the abolition of maintenance grants, and their replacement with loans, as a means of reducing subsidies to the poorer sectors of society and redistributing them to the better-off. In that regard, I urge my hon. Friends to look again at this report.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Lady agree, on the issue of class, that the attraction of higher education for young people who saw their own pals going out and earning money, while they were piling up debt, would be minimal? We must be realistic about that.

Dr. Jones: That is absolutely right. When I was a young girl living on a council estate, very few of my

friends went to university, and I was constantly asked whether I did not want to go out and get a job to earn some money, which was what the others aspired to do.
The report shows that young people from less affluent backgrounds are less likely to see higher education as the route to a higher income. They will be put off higher education by the knowledge that they will start their working life saddled with huge debts. Had I faced the prospect of debts of £5,000 or £6,000 more than the current debts, I cannot imagine that I would have been so enthusiastic about going to university.
It is not true that the majority of graduates earn more, because women graduates earn less than the overall male average. The logical conclusion of the argument that people who earn more should pay a levy for higher education is that all men should make some contribution; but of course that is nonsense.
I am deeply concerned about the proposals. There is no doubt that the Conservatives failed to fund the expansion in higher education, with the result that the vice-chancellors in 1996 proposed what they called a "political deficiency levy" of £300. That was the Conservatives' deficiency: their failure to fund education adequately. Industry had real worries about the effect on our national wealth and ability to compete in a technological, global economy.
We must give a higher priority to finding the resources for an adequately funded higher education system, with appropriately funded research and development in our universities. The previous Government failed to do that. I know that my Government want to address the issues, and that cannot be done without major changes in the Treasury rules and in the way in which universities are funded.
To those who say that people who benefit from higher education and earn higher salaries should pay more, I say, yes, but perhaps it is better to consider that many people earning higher incomes will have benefited, or will have children who have benefited or want to benefit, from a university education.
My parents would not have been able to help me out with a penny to finance my education, but I would not want my children to start their working lives saddled with enormous loans; I, as a parent, will find it incumbent on me to help my children to pay off the loans as they go through university. That is true of most parents from affluent backgrounds, who can afford the contribution.

Mr. Richard Allan: Does the hon. Lady accept that many parents who are expected to pay parental contributions currently do not do so? There is a qualitative difference between paying for tuition fees and paying for maintenance, because maintenance is controllable, but if those parents who have been assessed as affluent enough to pay for tuition fees do not do so, that is a bar to entering university in the first place.

Dr. Jones: I would not want to say that the parents who do not contribute to their children's education would necessarily make that distinction. I suspect that those who do not contribute are people from lower middle-class backgrounds who find it a struggle to supply that assistance, or people from working-class backgrounds who do not value education—we must do something about that—but the majority of parents give what they can afford.


Some parents already give large sums in excess of what is required by the parental contribution assessment: the average figure is £631 per student per annum, but I bet that that is heavily skewed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's time is up. I call Mr. John Bercow.

Mr. John Bercow: It is a pleasure to add my tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden). It was a witty, stimulating and intelligent contribution, of which he can be justly proud. He referred to the availability and calibre of bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Blackpool. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) were here, he would be able readily to testify to the accuracy of those comments, as the accommodation that he found in Blackpool was both high quality and extremely cheap. I am sure that the House will join me in looking forward to many future contributions of comparable calibre from the hon. Gentleman.
The Government's handling of student finance has not been adroit or sure-footed; it has been faltering and inept from the outset. They got into difficulty first and foremost because their approach was based on a deception. My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made the point, and it bears repetition, that, during the general election campaign, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, said on 14 April—it was reproduced in the Evening Standard, so the veracity of the statement is not in question—
Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education.
If that was not enough, the Foreign Secretary, as he is now, amplified the point in an interview with Leeds Student Radio a mere 10 days later. He observed: We are quite clear that tuition costs must be met by the state.
If the purpose and effect of those statements was not to persuade people that the Labour party would not introduce tuition fees in any shape or form, it is difficult to know precisely what the intended interpretation was. It is shameful that the Government misled people, and they have got into grave difficulty as a result: they conned people into thinking that continuing state finance would be the order of the day; it is not. They gave no advance notice and they are therefore responsible for a breach of trust, of faith and of understanding with the electorate, whose support they were then inviting.
A mere 90 days after the Foreign Secretary, then shadow Foreign Secretary, had said explicitly that it was the state's duty to pick up the bill, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment had the brass neck to come to the House and announce the proposal to introduce tuition fees. That is at the root of the Government's difficulties.

Mr. Willis: Is not it equal brass neck that a shadow spokesman spells out from the Front Bench the Tories' policy on tuition fees while their candidate in the Winchester by-election says exactly the opposite to students? is not that hypocrisy?

Mr. Bercow: My former hon. Friend, Mr. Malone, was an outstanding Member of Parliament, and I am certain that, after 20 November, he will be so once again.
Not only have the Government misled people about their intentions: they are guilty on several other fronts. They propose to misuse the proceeds of the new tax that they have introduced—I use the word tax advisedly. Consistently, their rhetoric—I suspect that this is true of the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office as it is of others on the Government Benches—has contained an insistence that higher education is underfunded and that more funds should be ploughed into the sector. One would assume that the logical corollary of that thesis would be that if new funds were raised—in this case through tuition fees—they would be ploughed back directly into the system. So far, however, we have managed to discover that only about £125 million out of the £150 million that is envisaged to be raised will be invested in higher education.
That information has been dragged out of the Government; they have not offered it voluntarily to the House, which is deeply regrettable. It is inconsistent with the position that they consistently advanced in the past. Higher education will be underfunded. Instead of supporting students, the Government propose to short-change them. That is a serious matter.
The problem of access to higher education is also serious. There are strong arguments in support of tuition fees, but the idea that there is a justification for a sudden change of policy, of which the public received no notification before the election and which they were assured would not happen, is much less powerful. The dangers are very real. Some Labour Members are deeply dissatisfied with the policy; I think of the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). I must not leave out the distinguished hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is profoundly dissatisfied with every component part of the Government's higher education policy.
The fact that there has been a 16 per cent. downturn in applications ought to be a matter of serious concern to the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends; it should not be lightly dismissed. If people now fear to go into higher education, that is a worrying problem. The Government must reckon with that problem because it is incompatible with their ambition for greater access to, and participation in, higher education.
The problems that I have described are severe enough, but they have been compounded by two others. First, there was the breathtaking incompetence over the gap year. There was an extraordinary saga of misinformation and tergiversation by the Government. At first, there was going to be no provision for gap-year students. In rushing helter-skelter to make an announcement after Sir Ron Dearing had reported, the Government had not considered what to do. Two weeks later, they said that there would be an allowance for people who were prepared to do three months of voluntary work. They suddenly announced that that was unworkable and that the 19,000 students involved would be admitted on the 1997 arrangements.
I still have constituents—I hope that there will be a response from the Minister on this in his winding-up speech—who are losing out because, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, they made considered applications once they had received their A-level results. One such person, who comes from the lovely village of Cuddington in my constituency, is currently working, as she always intended to, at a school


in Malawi where she helps the boys as a matron. She is doing good work for a year. She got good results and she always intended to go into higher education. However, she will not benefit from the concession the Government have announced. There is no intellectual justification for the arbitrary distinction that Ministers have drawn.
The Government should have the guts, the political dexterity and the will to stand up to the Treasury, and to secure the outcome that they need and that the interests of our students warrant. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may chunter from a sedentary position, as has become his wont. I invite him to exercise what modicum of self-restraint he is able to muster in the circumstances.
I must direct one further gentle salvo at the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office. I understand his predicament. It must be a source of the most stupefying embarrassment to have to come to the House today after his cack-handed, incompetent handling of the situation in Scotland. We assume that the Government's decision is testimony to their disbelief in equal treatment for every resident of the United Kingdom, and it is shameful. St Andrews, Dundee, Edinburgh and the other Scottish universities will demonstrate beyond peradventure the damage that the Minister's misjudgment has caused.
The Government's approach has been characterised by deception, iniquity and incompetence. The losers are the students and our higher education system. For that reason, I hope—I doubt that this will happen—that the Minister will have the good grace and courtesy to apologise to the House this evening.

Mr. Michael Ancram: This has been a worthwhile, interesting and revealing debate. We heard a maiden speech by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on which I congratulate him. I say in a friendly way that I look forward to the days when the conventions of the House allow us to hit back at his speeches.
We heard a number of powerful speeches by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I think particularly of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who rightly pointed out the missing faces on the Government Benches today—the dogs that did not bark, the disappeared and those who were told that they had better keep away.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) rightly reminded us of the Conservative Government's record, when we saw the number of students entering higher education increase from one in eight to one in three.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I am new to the customs of this House. Is it customary for only 12 Opposition Members to be present for the summing up in an Opposition day debate?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman might count the proportion of Members on the Government side compared with the proportion on our side. One of the difficulties of having a very large majority is that questions such as the

hon. Gentleman's tend to rebound. We certainly made up for numbers in terms of the quality of the speeches we made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford made a powerful speech in which he reminded us of the Conservative Government's achievements. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) reminded us that, for all their protestations to the contrary, the Government have not endorsed the Dearing report and that their policies are not on all fours with that report. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made it clear that the Government have misled people about their policies.
The most extraordinary thing about the debate has been the fact that many speeches made by Labour Members have been consistent in only one respect—that none of them supported the Government's policy of higher tuition fees. Labour Members blamed the previous Conservative Government and talked all around the subject, but they avoided tuition fees like a ghost avoids garlic.
The worst culprit was the Secretary of State himself. On three occasions, he was asked a question and, on each occasion, he failed consummately to defend the policy, obviously because he is embarrassed by it. The reasons for his embarrassment are also clear. He failed again, as he had previously, to explain what his leader, the Prime Minister meant when, on 14 April—I quote his words, as have many of my colleagues—he said:
Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education.
We were told the other day by the Prime Minister that he said that because the Dearing report had not yet come out. Why did he not say that the Government would have to wait for Dearing? He did not say that. He said during the election campaign to the people of this country that Labour had no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education.
What does the Secretary of State believe that students were led to understand by the Prime Minister's statement? Were they to understand that the Government would wait for the Dearing report or that tuition fees would be introduced? Alternatively, were they to understand before they voted that the Government had no intention of introducing tuition fees for higher education? That is an important point, which must be answered.
Throughout the election campaign and beyond, Labour Members have told us that they are to be trusted, that they have made a contract with the British people and that we can have confidence in their words, yet here we have a blatant example of an undertaking given during the election which has been refuted 100 per cent. by Labour's policies in government.
I shall now deal with the other question that has arisen during the debate—Scottish students and English students attending Scottish universities. I have had a soft spot for the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, who will respond to the debate, since the days in 1979 when he and I campaigned together on the no side in the devolution referendum campaign. He made a powerful argument then about the need for parity between the respective parts of the United Kingdom. He has obviously changed his mind on devolution, but to judge from Labour's education policy, as enunciated over the past few weeks, he has also changed his mind about parity.


For all the huffing and puffing, the facts are straightforward. Scottish students at Scottish universities will not have to pay the tuition fee for the fourth year of degrees, and nor will Italian, German, French, Spanish Greek or southern Irish students, but English, Welsh and Northern Irish students will. The Government call that fair. They say that that creates equity in the system. Is it fair for a German student to be paid for in a way that a Northern Ireland student cannot be? Is it fair for an English student at Edinburgh to pay £1,000 for the final year when a Greek student gets it for free?
I have just seen an answer from the Minister to one of my colleagues that says that tuition fees are expected to be £1,000 a year and will be increased in line with inflation for subsequent years. That is an interesting departure. Until now, students had thought that it was bad enough having to find £1,000 a year but, given the previous Labour Government's record on inflation—taking average inflation over their last period of office—students will have to find another £150 a year in their first year, and every year afterwards. Once again, the Labour Government speak with one voice in one direction and another in another. The Government call it fairness when Scots will, rightly, still be able, without penalty of a tuition fee, to come to English universities but English students will have to pay to go the other way. That is the fairness of the madhouse, compounded by the arrogance of the Minister in responding to criticisms.
I am not going to personalise the debate but I should like to refer to the editorial of The Scotsman on 30 October, which said that the Minister had reacted to criticism with rancour and stated that it
would matter less, of course, if Mr. Wilson's job did not matter so much. Yet whether making a hash of statutory appraisal, a botch of national testing, a mess of nursery vouchers, being posted missing during the gap year fiasco, or making a spectacle of himself over tuition fees, Mr. Wilson has at least been consistent in his attitude to opposition: he is right until proven wrong.
Hon. Members who have spoken today have comprehensively proved that the Minister is wrong. When the principals of the Scottish universities say that their institutions are endangered by the Government's policy, it is not enough for him to say that they are talking "hyperbolic nonsense"; he must address their points. I have some questions that I hope that he will answer in this debate.
What budget will bear the cost of the fourth-year subsidy? Will it come from the Scottish block, and what will have to be forgone to pay for it? From what budget will the cost of European students in their fourth year come? Will that come from the Scottish budget? If so, what is the expected cost? How can the Government justify that the Scottish block should bear the cost of students from Greece, France, Germany and southern Ireland when it is not prepared to bear the cost of students from England, Northern Ireland and Wales?
Are the Government really arguing, as I understood from an earlier answer, that the first year of a Scottish degree is not of university standard, so that English students can come to their university degrees a year late? If so, why is not the same argument made for European students who come into Scottish higher education? Is it not an insult to the basis of higher education in Scotland that such a suggestion should be made?
For four years, I was the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland. How many Northern Ireland students will be affected by having to pay for

a fourth year? What will that do for the close link between the higher education systems of Scotland and Northern Ireland, which has been a matter of pride for the two countries for many years? Is it the Government's intention ultimately to make Scottish higher education for Scots alone? What will that do for the quality and reputation of Scottish universities?

Mr. Wilson: Shame.

Mr. Ancram: The Minister may say that, but it was he who argued last week that the numbers were insignificant. He argued that all that mattered in Scottish education was that Scottish students were supported and devil take the hindmost. If he denies that, what robust calculation has been made about the overall viability of Scottish higher education institutions if students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland stop coming? How many would be threatened with closure? Where would the closures take place? Again, the Minister laughs, but there are people in the Scottish higher education system who predict that that will be the outcome of his policy.

Mr. Wilson: I did not laugh; I looked astonished because the right hon. Gentleman knows something about Scotland and cannot possibly believe that what is proposed will have a significant effect on the number of students who come from outside Scotland to Scottish universities, not least because more than half of them will not be touched by tuition fees at all.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is closing his ears to what is being said by the principals of the Scottish universities. We have heard evidence from St. Andrews university that the number of students applying from England is going down as a result of the policy. If he is to be worthy of his office, he must stop blocking his ears and treating the matter with the arrogance of his talk of hyperbolic nonsense. He must start listening to those who know about higher education in Scotland: those who have to operate within it.
The whole policy has been a saga of incompetence, deceit, indecision, muddle and, ultimately, discrimination. That can serve only to undermine confidence in higher education across the United Kingdom but particularly in Scotland. If that is yet another example of the arrogance of this Government, who believe that rhetoric rather than reality is what counts and that public criticism of them is a new form of heresy, they will learn from us, and, increasingly, from the public, that that is not the case. They have to listen to what people say to them. If today's debate is anything to go by, they will learn it soon enough from their own Back Benchers. If the Minister had looked around, he would have seen that the faces behind him had all the warmth of the gathering storm.
We welcome the expansion of higher education and recognise the good work that has been proposed by Dearing, but we condemn the Government's deliberate attempt to ignore and distort the report. I ask the House to support the motion.

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): This debate has been a great intellectual reinforcement of what we are doing.
As exercises in amnesia allied to brass neck go, even by Tory standards, this has been a classic. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) gives a new meaning to the term cross-border flow. Even though he was a Member of Parliament for most of the 18 years during which the Tories were in power, he made no attempt to explain why the funding crisis in higher education that the Dearing committee was set up to address even exists.
I congratulate my hon. Friends on some excellent contributions. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on an excellent maiden speech. I congratulate him not only on being the first Labour Member for Blackpool, South but on being a Labour Member with a majority of 11,616. That may remind some Conservative Members of the realities of the past 18 years. I thought that his contribution, particularly in rebutting the golden age mythology of higher education, was outstanding.
As was pointed out, I did indeed benefit from the Scottish higher education system but I am mindful of the fact that when I benefited from it, I was the one in 14 of Scottish school leavers who did so. I am acutely and humbly aware that many of the 13 who did not go into higher education were every bit as able and eligible to benefit from it as I was but that the funding regime in place at the time meant that they never had the chance of seeing the inside of a university. Whatever else we can say about the Tories, we cannot deny that they increased the numbers in higher education.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear," but the tragedy, the disgrace and ultimately the hypocrisy of tonight's debate is that the previous Government did not provide the money to follow the students. As a result, Scotland has 44 per cent. participation in higher education, but the funding per student—the money that follows the student into higher education—has dropped by 40 per cent. under the Tories. That is what created the crisis in higher education.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: On the question of funding, is my hon. Friend aware that some of the small to medium-sized institutions such as Stirling, 31 per cent. of whose student intake comes from outside Scotland, are extremely worried? Can he give the House an assurance that due account will be taken of that, as we could experience a drop in student numbers and places not being filled as a consequence of the fourth-year rule? Will he bear that in mind in his calculations?

Mr. Wilson: I shall come to that later in my speech. I am sure I will satisfy my hon. Friend that those fears have been greatly exaggerated.
Congratulations are also due to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on producing a splendid leaflet written on behalf of the Tory candidate in Winchester, which portrays a somewhat unrecognisable slimline figure, besweatered on the campus like a latter-day Winchester Daniel Cohn-Bendit and promising to stand four square to back the student fight. It says that a vote for Gerry Malone will ensure that the issue is not allowed to go

away. Presumably, if Gerry Malone had been here today, there would have been six rather than five Tory Back Benchers behind the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment. That is a true measure of Tory concern for students—[Interruption.] There were only five behind the shadow Secretary of State when he opened the debate. I can count and see. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There is far too much noise from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Wilson: Most of them have only just woken up, so they have a lot of energy to get rid of, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There are three key elements in the Government's policy. First, we aim to put substantial additional funds into higher and further education. We are committed to increasing the number of students in higher education, but because of the Tories' record, the money is not there. Secondly, one third of students in higher education and 40 per cent. in Scotland will continue to pay no tuition fees because of the application of the means test. It shows real political irresponsibility when politicians from any party try to give the impression that every student would be paying £1,000 a year when that bears no relation to reality.

Mr. Jenkin: It is not fair, is it?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not fair, but we are not talking about what is fair to me or to the Government. We are talking about the fact that it is not fair that people from less well-off backgrounds should be frightened away from higher education by the irresponsible scaremongering of people such as him.
Thirdly, the vast majority of graduates will repay less than they do under the current scheme which we inherited from the Tories: it is absolutely crucial that people realise that. Taken together, those elements—more money for higher education; 40 per cent. of Scottish students and one third of those throughout the United Kingdom being exempt from tuition fees; and the vast majority repaying less each month—represent a package that need deter nobody from a lower-income background from entering higher education.

Mr. Dorrell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last time one of his ministerial colleagues with responsibility for education spoke about irresponsible scaremongering, Baroness Blackstone was obliged to make a total retreat from her position a week later? Is he about to make a similar announcement? While he is answering that question, will he also explain to the House whether he is describing the view of the Scottish higher education principals as irresponsible scaremongering?

Mr. Wilson: Let us be clear about gap funding. There was a statement on gap funding at the conclusion of the discussions on it. However, there was no U-turn because there was no initial statement of the opposite—[Interruption.] Public school histrionics are the privilege of a Tory Opposition, but they do not change the facts. I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman and a number of his colleagues slavishly read out their brief, now appearing to take as gospel truth everything said by


university principals as if it came down to them on tablets of stone. For a long time under the Tories, university principals were saying that more money should be pumped into universities: the Tories never reacted to that in such a positive way—all they did was cut, cut and cut again.
Those who know about Scottish education know that St. Andrews is a rather distinctive case because 41 per cent. of its students are from England. That is fine. I am all in favour of diversity. But that is in marked contrast with the position of Paisley university, where 4 per cent. of students are from England, or Robert Gordon university, where 3.5 per cent. of students are from England.
I know from his political history that the right hon. Member for Devizes is a very naive politician, but even he need not accept as biblical prophesy every word that comes from the principal of St. Andrews university. If he is aware of the geography of Scotland, may I suggest that he goes a little further south and listens to the much more reasoned, rational and measured comments of the principal of Edinburgh university, which has an even higher proportion of English students than St. Andrews? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says, "It is very worrying." He has made an interesting statement that it is very worrying that the principal of Edinburgh university should take a more rational view of these matters.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman misheard me. I said that Edinburgh university is very worried. I have spoken to a number of senior people there recently. In the few moments that remain, will he take the opportunity to answer the question from the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) about the fairness of the policy that he is introducing in Scotland?

Mr. Wilson: If Opposition Members will stop baying and guffawing for a moment, I shall be delighted to do so, but leopards cannot change their spots and I very much doubt whether they will do so.
I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Devizes has heard of the Garrick report. He looks very puzzled when I mention it. That report contained a request that I ensured equity for Scottish students in universities taking a four-year degree which had parity of esteem with the English three-year degree. That is exactly what we have done.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman clearly wants to use up part of the three minutes that remain. I shall not give way to the silly man. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. I expect Opposition Front-Bench Members to set a good example.

Mr. Wilson: What we are witnessing is a veneer of indignation built on a very deep trough of ignorance, and Conservative Members do not want to hear anything that threatens to expose that ignorance.
The Garrick committee recommended that,
if a graduate contribution is introduced, the Secretary of State should ensure that the contribution from Scottish graduates for qualifications gained in Scotland is equitable with the contribution for comparable qualifications gained elsewhere in the UK.

The Government have delivered exactly what Garrick recommended.
Let me educate the shadow spokesman. There is no perfect symmetry within the United Kingdom higher education system because there are different school qualifications and different higher education qualifications. As soon as we try to match them in order to resolve one anomaly, we run the risk of creating another anomaly. That is the reality, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. We have tried to give the optimum, fairest possible deal to the maximum number of students and we have succeeded.
Let me turn to the legitimate concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill). Of course there are concerns about numbers, but we can take out various categories of student—the Tories know nothing about this subject. Let us take out the third of students coming from the rest of the United Kingdom who are exempt from means testing for tuition fees; the 10 per cent. who come in the second year to Scottish honours degree courses; and the 10 per cent. of English, Welsh and Northern Irish students who do ordinary degrees. After doing that, we are left with that small minority who are asked to pay the £1,000 tuition fees.
If the principals and everyone else went out and told the truth, they would frighten away many fewer students and do Scottish higher education a big favour. The important thing is to get more people from a wider range of social backgrounds into higher education in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The Tories failed to do that, because they did not care. We are going to advance from the position in my day, when only one in 14 students went into higher education. In Scotland, we are going to get more than 50 per cent. of students into higher and further education and they will come from all social backgrounds. None of the scaremongering from Opposition parties will forestall that aim.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 373.

Division No. 80]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Amess, David



Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Collins, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Beggs, Roy
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bercow, John
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brady, Graham
Evans, Nigel


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fallon, Michael


Burns, Simon
Flight, Howard


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Cash, William
Fox, Dr Liam


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Fraser, Christopher



Gale, Roger


Chope, Christopher
Garnier, Edward


Clappison, James
Gibb, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Gill, Christopher






Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Pickles, Eric


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Prior, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Randall, John


Gray, James
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Green, Damian
Robathan, Andrew


Greenway, John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Grieve, Dominic
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Ruffley, David


Hague, Rt Hon William
St Aubyn, Nick


Hammond, Philip
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hawkins, Nick
Shepherd, Richard


Hayes, John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Heald, Oliver
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Soames, Nicholas


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Spring, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Streeter, Gary


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Swayne, Desmond


Jenkin, Bernard
Syms, Robert


Johnson Smith,
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Key, Robert
Taylor, Sir Teddy


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tredinnick, David


Lansley, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Letwin, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Viggers, Peter


Lidington, David
Walter, Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wardle, Charles


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Waterson, Nigel


Loughton, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Luff, Peter
Whitney, Sir Raymond


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


MacKay, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Willetts, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wilshire, David


Malins, Humfrey
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maples, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Mates, Michael
Woodward, Shaun


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Yeo, Tim


May, Mrs Theresa
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Norman, Archie



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paice, James
Sir David Madel and


Paterson, Owen
Mr. John M. Taylor.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Betts, Clive


Ainger, Nick
Blears, Ms Hazel


Allan, Richard
Blizzard, Bob


Allen, Graham
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Borrow David


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ashdown Rt Hon Paddy
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ashton, Joe
Bradshaw, Ben


Atherton, Ms Candy
Brake, Tom


Austin, John
Brand, Dr Peter


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Breed, Colin


Barnes, Harry
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Beard, Nigel
Browne, Desmond


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Begg, Miss Anne
Buck, Ms Karen


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burden, Richard


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Burgon, Colin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Burnett, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Burstow, Paul


Benton, Joe
Butler, Mrs Christine


Bermingham, Gerald
Byers, Stephen


Berry, Roger
Cable, Dr Vincent


Best, Harold
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)





Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caplin, Ivor
Foulkes, George


Casale, Roger
Fyfe, Maria


Caton, Martin
Galbraith, Sam


Cawsey, Ian
Gapes, Mike


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gardiner, Barry


Chaytor, David
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chidgey, David
Gerrard, Neil


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gibson, Dr Ian


Church, Ms Judith
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clapham, Michael
Godman, Norman A


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Dr Lynda
Goggins, Paul


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gorrie, Donald


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Coaker, Vernon
Grogan, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gunnell, John


Coleman, Iain
Hain, Peter


Colman, Tony
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Connarty, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cooper, Yvette
Hancock, Mike


Corbett, Robin
Hanson, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Corston, Ms Jean
Harris, Dr Evan


Cotter, Brian
Harvey, Nick


Cousins, Jim
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cranston, Ross
Healey, John


Crausby, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hepburn, Stephen


Cummings, John
Heppell, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Hill, Keith



Hinchliffe, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hoey, Kate


Dalyell, Tam
Home Robertson, John


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hoon, Geoffrey


Darvill, Keith
Hope, Phil


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Davidson, Ian
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howells, Dr Kim


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dawson, Hilton
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Denham, John
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Hurst, Alan


Dismore, Andrew
Hutton, John


Dobbin, Jim
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Illsley, Eric


Donohoe, Brian H
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Doran, Frank
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dowd, Jim
Jamieson, David


Drew, David
Jenkins, Brian


Drown, Ms Julia
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Ennis, Jeff
Jones, Ms Jennifer(Wolverh'ton SW)


Fatchett, Derek



Fearn, Ronnie
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Flint, Caroline
Keeble, Ms Sally


Follett, Barbara
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Keetch, Paul






Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pike, Peter L


Kemp, Fraser
Plaskitt, James


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Pollard, Kerry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pond, Chris


Khabra, Piara S
Pope, Greg


Kidney, David
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kingham, Ms Tess
Quinn, Lawrie


Kirkwood, Archy
Radice, Giles


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rammell, Bill


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rapson, Syd


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Raynsford, Nick


Laxton, Bob
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lepper, David
Rendel, David


Leslie, Christopher
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Levitt, Tom
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooker, Jeff


Linton, Martin
Rooney, Terry


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livsey, Richard
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roy, Frank


Lock, David
Ruane, Chris


McAllion, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Salter, Martin


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sanders, Adrian


Macdonald, Calum
Savidge, Malcolm


McDonnell, John
Sawford, Phil


McIsaac, Shona
Sedgemore, Brian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Shaw, Jonathan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McLeish, Henry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McNulty, Tony
Singh, Marsha


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mandelson, Peter



Marek, Dr John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spellar, John


Merron, Gillan
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Milburn, Alan
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moore, Michael
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morley, Elliot
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stunell, Andrew


Mountford, Kali
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mudie, George
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Norris, Dan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Olner, Bill
Timms, Stephen


O'Neill, Martin
Todd, Mark


Öpik, Lembit
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Organ, Mrs Diana
Trickett, Jon


Palmer, Dr Nick
Truswell, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Perham, Ms Linda
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Pickthall, Colin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)





Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Tyler, Paul
Willis, Phil


Vaz, Keith
Wills, Michael


Wallace, James
Wilson, Brian


Walley, Ms Joan
Winnick, David


Ward, Ms Claire
Wood, Mike


Watts, David
Woolas, Phil


Webb, Steve
Wray, James


White, Brian
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Ms Bridget Prentice.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 169.

Division No. 81]
[7.18 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainger, Nick
Church, Ms Judith


Allen, Graham
Clapham, Michael


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary



Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Austin, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Banks, Tony
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Baron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Bayley, Hugh
Clwyd, Ann


Beard, Nigel
Coaker, Vernon


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coffey, Ms Ann


Begg, Miss Anne
Coleman, Iain


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Colman, Tony


Bennett, Andrew F
Connarty, Michael


Benton, Joe
Cooke, Frank (Stockton N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cooper, Yvette


Berry, Roger
Corbett, Robin


Best, Harold
Corston, Ms Jean


Betts, Clive
Cousins, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cranston, Ross


Blizzard, Bob
Crausby, David


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cummings, John


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)


Borrow, David



Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradshaw, Ben
Dalyell, Tam


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Darvill, Keith


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Browne, Desmond
Davidson, Ian


Buck, Ms Karen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Burden, Richard
Dawson, Hilton


Burgon, Colin
Dean Mrs Janet


Butler, Stephen
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dismore, Andrew


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Caplin, Ivor
Donohoe, Brian H


Casale, Roger
Doran, Frank


Caton, Martin
Dowd, Jim


Cawsey, Ian
Drew, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Drown, Ms Julia


Chaytor, David
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)






Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kidney, David


Edwards, Huw
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Ennis, Jeff
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fatchett, Derek
Kingham, Ms Tess


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Flint, Caroline
Laxton, Bob


Follett, Barbara
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Levitt, Tom


Foulkes, George
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Galbraith, Sam
Linton, Martin


Gapes, Mike
Lloyd Tony (Manchester C)


Gardiner, Barry
Lock, David


Gerrard, Neil
McAvoy, Thomas


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godman, Norman A
Macdonald, Calum


Godsiff, Roger
McIsaac, Shona


Goggins, Paul
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grocott, Bruce
Mc Walter, Tony


Grogan, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gunnell, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hain, Peter
Mandelson, Peter


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marek, Dr John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hanson, David
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Martlew, Eric


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Maxton, John


Healey, John
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Milburn, Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Austin


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hoey, Kate
Morley, Elliot


Home Robertson, John
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hope, Phil
Mountford, Kali


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mullin, Chris


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Humble, Mrs Joan
Norris, Dan


Hurst, Alan
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hutton, John
Olner, Bill


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Neill, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jamieson, David
Pickthall, Colin


Jenkins, Brian
Pike, Peter L


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Plaskitt, James


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pollard, Kerry



Pond, Chris


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Ms Jennifer (Wolverh'ton SW)
Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Radice, Giles


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rammell, Bill


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rapson, Syd


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Raynsford, Nick


Kemp, Fraser
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Khabra, Piara S
Roche, Mrs Barbara





Rogers, Allan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rooker, Jeff (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roy, Frank
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ruane, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Todd, Mark


Salter, Martin
Touhig, Don


Savidge, Malcolm
Trickett, Jon


Sawford, Phil
Truswell, Paul


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Sheerman, Barry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Vaz, Keith


Singh, Marsha
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Watts, David


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
White, Brian


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Whitehead, Dr Alan



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Spellar, John
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wills, Michael


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wilson, Brian


Stevenson, George
Winnick, David


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wood, Mike


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Woolas, Phil


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wray, James


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stott, Roger
Wyatt, Derek


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stringer, Graham
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Ms Bridget Prentice.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cran, James


Allan, Richard
Curry, Rt Hon David


Amess, David
Dafis, Cynog


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Duncan, Alan


Beggs, Roy
Duncan Smith, Iain


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Evans, Nigel


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Faber, David


Bercow, John
Fabricant, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fallon, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fearn, Ronnie


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Flight, Howard


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brady, Graham
Fox, Dr Liam


Brake, Tom
Fraser, Christopher


Brand, Dr Peter
Gale, Roger


Breed, Colin
Garnier, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gibb, Nick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gill, Christopher


Burnett, John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Burns, Simon
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burstow, Paul
Gorrie, Donald


Butterfill, John
Gray, James


Cable, Dr Vincent
Green, Damian


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Greenway, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gummer, Rt Hon John



Hague, Rt Hon William


Chidgey, David
Hammond, Philip


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hancock, Mike


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Harris, Dr Evan


Collins, Tim
Harvey, Nick


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hawkins, Nick


Cotter, Brian
Hayes, John






Heald, Oliver
Robathan, Andrew


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Ruffley, David


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Sanders, Adrian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunter, Andrew
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Jenkin, Bernard
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Johnson Smith,
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Spring, Richard


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Steen, Anthony


Keetch, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Stunell, Andrew


Key, Robert
Swayne, Desmond


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Swinney, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Syms, Robert


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lidington, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Livsey, Richard
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tredinnick, David


Loughton, Tim
Trend, Michael


Luff, Peter
Tyler, Paul


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tyrie, Andrew


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Viggers, Peter


MacKay, Andrew
Wallace, James


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Walter, Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Wardle, Charles


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Madel, Sir David
Webb, Steve


Madel, Sir David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Malins, Humfrey
Whittingdale, John


Mates, Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Wigley, Dafydd


May, Mrs Theresa
Wilkinson, John


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Willetts, David


Moore, Michael
Wilshire, David


Öpik, Lembit
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Paice, James
Woodward, Shaun


Paterson, Owen
Yeo, Tim


Pickles, Eric
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Prior, David



Randall, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mr. Don Foster and


Rendel, David
Mr. Phil Willis.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the decisive response of Her Majesty's Government to the report of the National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education and to the crisis of funding in higher education bequeathed by the previous administration; notes with approval the new arrangements for supporting students. including fair repayment arrangements and targeted help for the most disadvantaged; and welcomes the commitment to ensuring that more people will have opportunities to participate in high-quality education to their benefit and to the benefit of the country as a whole.

Rural Life

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Before I call the first speaker, I inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I remind the House that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Mr. Michael Jack: I beg to move,
That this House expresses its concern about the economic and environmental pressures currently affecting the rural economy and rural life; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to respond to this situation by protecting farmers from the effects of the appreciation of sterling, withdrawing the Government-imposed ceiling on the weight of cattle entering the BSE over thirty months scheme and undertaking without precondition discussions with farmers and their representatives about the level of payments to be made through the 1997–98 Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances scheme; and condemns the proposals to extend access to the countryside by means of a legal right to roam rather than voluntary agreement, not to introduce policies to protect small village shops and rural post offices, to create urban-based regional development agencies, to weaken planning controls designed to protect the Green Belt and the countryside, and to threaten the pursuit of traditional country sports.
I find myself at the Dispatch Box as a result of the sad resignation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) from the post that I now hold. He carried out his job as shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with distinction following his ministerial career in that Department. He has made his decision for his own reasons, which he has stated. I know that he wishes to contribute to the debate this evening, and I wish him well in the future.
The motion standing in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends deals with the threats to rural life and the rural economy arising from the Government's actions. We shall address issues such as the decline in farm incomes, the future of the hill livestock compensatory allowance, access to the countryside, country sports, and the situation with rural development agencies. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) will deal with a whole raft of environmental issues that are threatening the countryside at present. It is hardly surprising that the countryside believes that it is under siege, but it is interesting that Labour Members should express surprise about that.
I note that the amendment put down by the Liberal Democrats—the junior partners in government—which you did not select, Mr. Deputy Speaker, agrees largely with the line that we have taken and that we shall debate this evening. We should not be surprised that the countryside feels under siege as a result of the Government's actions.
I referred to the Labour manifesto—it is always useful to see where a party is coming from—and, after an assiduous search, I discovered the 20 words in that manifesto that amount to an agriculture policy. One of those words was "Labour" and the other 19 dealt vaguely with agriculture. On the basis of such a thin diet, not only do the Government not have a coherent rural policy but they cannot claim to speak for the countryside, as Labour Members do from time to time.
It is interesting to consider what the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been up to since May. I used the modern technology of the internet to see if I could find anything that constituted a coherent rural


policy. The only document I found that used the word "comprehensive" was a spending review. That was the only reference to rural policy to be found in MAFF press releases. The way that Ministers' minds were working is clear from the way in which they caved in to Treasury pressure. The press release entitled "MAFF Conducts Comprehensive Spending Review" states that the Government aim
To examine the contribution of HLCAs towards meeting the objectives identified and to examine any other options for achieving those objectives more cost effectively or in ways which otherwise minimise public expenditure"—
the cat was well and truly out of the bag as long ago as 29 July when the Minister was under pressure to reduce public expenditure—
and maximise the positive impact on the economy.
The Minister wants to boast to the rest of the non-rural world about how he has cut expenditure in that area. He winds up by saying:
The consideration of possible options should not be limited to agricultural support measures.
Goodness knows what is going on. No wonder there is uncertainty in the countryside and that it feels under siege.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is it not hypocritical of the Minister to talk in those terms when Labour inherited a bill for £3.5 billion arising from the BSE disaster?

Mr. Jack: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman anticipates a rapid change of Government that would translate me immediately to the other Dispatch Box. Would the hon. Gentleman not have afforded that degree of support to farmers as a result of the BSE difficulties? It was right and proper to support the farmers at a time of considerable stress. It is no use Labour Members mocking me. Successive Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the former Conservative Government followed the scientific advice that they were given and acted properly in the interests of food and farming. They fought our corner in Europe until Professor Pattison's announcement. This debate is not solely about BSE, but I am happy to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman—perhaps on a Wednesday morning—and to defend our position robustly.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food claims to speak for the countryside: he claims to be in touch with rural Britain. What was one of his earliest acts? On 28 May, the Minister who wants to be in touch with the countryside scrapped the MAFF regional panels—the one lifeline of communication with the countryside. He replaced it with Ministers having to go hither and thither, the length and breadth of England, listening to farmers and talking to the food industry. They will be breathless if they try to carry out the work of the regional panels. [Interruption.] I hear the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), saying, "We will do it." I suggest that he read the Grower, for example, where his ministerial colleague the noble Lord Donoughue is reported only for cancelling meetings—not a good example of getting out and about so as to be in touch with the countryside.
Cutting off those rural panels was not a very clever thing to do if the Minister and his team want to keep in touch. The people involved will feel cheated because they

made a significant contribution to ensuring that the previous Government were kept up to speed about rural and countryside issues and the benefit of that knowledge will no longer be available to the Minister.
It is hardly surprising that Labour Ministers go about their business in this way. One has only to read the Government amendment that has been selected for debate. It is pretty old, tired politics for the Minister to fall back on words such as
deplores the neglect of the countryside and rural areas over the past eighteen years".
I am delighted that behind me this evening is my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), a distinguished former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whose track record in fighting for the interests of British farmers during a period of reform of the common agricultural policy is second to none. He defended the interests of Britain's farmers, as did the former Member, William Waldegrave, my boss when I was in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. But for his hard work, animal welfare would not be an issue on the European agenda. The Government's tawdry charge that the previous Administration did not look after the countryside for 18 years does not wash.
I remind the Minister that since 1992, farm incomes went up by 85 per cent. when we were in charge. I remind him that our work on Food From Britain has helped more than 1,000 companies to develop their food exports. We have some of the highest welfare standards in Europe as a result of our stewardship of countryside matters. We brought in massive deregulation and the opening up of agricultural markets with the removal of the Potato Marketing Board and the milk marketing boards. That is a record of which my right hon. and hon. Friends can be proud. I dismiss the first line of the Minister's amendment to my motion.
The amendment goes on and
congratulates the Government on its commitment to the countryside".
Twenty words in a manifesto do not add up to a commitment, and the cancelling of the regional panels seems more like cancelling a commitment than building one.
Further on in the amendment, we get to the real issue:
the Government's intention to create the conditions necessary to let the rural economy flourish".
We will speak about declining farm incomes, the tawdry way in which the Government are dealing with hill farmers, the burden on dairy farmers of the work that they have done on the over-30-months scheme, and other issues.
Then we read the hidden agenda—the Government's intention to
enhance the rural environment and to enable everyone to enjoy the countryside".
If that is not shorthand for the right to roam, I do not know what is.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: My right hon. Friend will realise that hill farm incomes have fallen by 20 per cent. Recently, farmers in Northumberland tackled the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), to ask what he intended to do about hill livestock compensatory allowance payments. The Minister replied:


I thought there was some better news around—but I have forgotten what it is.
Will my right hon. Friend press the Minister of State to see whether he can remember what good news he had for hill farmers?

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I tried to find out what the Minister of State said at the Great North Meet. According to a newspaper report,
Mr. Rooker told the Great North Meet in North Yorkshire that `there is better news floating around the system than there was in the summer.
What is this system? Is this some new agricultural world in which Ministers live? It is hardly surprising that they are cut off from the countryside; they are in the system, and there is something floating about in it—probably the Minister.
The Minister of State went on to make this devastating commitment—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am sorry if Labour Members do not like the truth, but this is what their Minister is saying. He said that Labour
will not walk away from hill farmers—because we recognise the contribution they make to the upland landscape, the countryside
and so on. All the soft words in the world do not take away from the fact that, as I shall outline in greater detail, he has already told hill farmers, "I am taking away £60 million from the hill livestock compensatory allowance. You are back to 1996. I do not care what arguments you put, because I am not going to listen to you. You are not going to come and see me—"

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): Later I will welcome the right hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on his appointment, but now I will intervene as briefly as I can. The right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister in the previous Administration. Did they make any provision for continuing that support in this financial year or next year?

Mr. Jack: As the right hon. Gentleman is not a Treasury Minister, I suggest that he goes back to the Red Book, where he will find that there is a year-on-year increase. I will explain later how he can easily afford that within his budget, as he will also know the way in which the European public expenditure survey works. Let us have none of this nasty business of tripping me up at this stage. I suggest that the Minister does his homework and goes back and looks at the Red Book, where he will see that for the next financial year there is an increase, not a decrease, compared with this financial year.

Mr. David Maclean: Perhaps in the course of his remarks my right hon. Friend will ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food not whether there was a provision but whether he even asked the Treasury for something for HLCAs.

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend is right. That is why under the fundamental expenditure review I concentrated on the fact that the Minister had already given it away before he started on the current exercise of not listening to the hill farmers. I do not think that he bothered to ask the Treasury, and he should speak to his own accounting officer. I shall try to help him out later and find him some money, as I have done a little homework on that.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that under our tutelage and our stewardship of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whereas at one time agriculture accounted for 73 per cent. of the European budget, we helped to negotiate that down to 50 per cent. Our record of agricultural stewardship stands examination.
If the Minister wants to attack us for the past 18 years, why has he, together with his colleague from the Department of the Environment, not had the courage to say that he will produce a parallel to "Rural England 1996", which contains 140 separate commitments from my party to the countryside? It is the only comprehensive record of countryside policy that exists. The Government do not have one.

Mr. Peter Bradley: The right hon. Gentleman commended to the House his Government's stewardship of the countryside over the past 18 years. How would he account for the fact that the landslide on 1 May was almost as impressive in the countryside as it was in the towns? Some 50 seats there fell to the Labour party on 1 May and several more fell to the Liberal Democrats. Can he account for that phenomenon?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman should look at a map, and he should listen to the voices of disillusion, especially from the hills. He would realise that people understand the message from the Opposition.
Let us deal with the meat of the debate. The first item that we want to discuss is farm incomes. The Minister knows that farmers face severe problems because of the appreciation of sterling against the ecu. One of my hon. Friends mentioned an increase of some 20 per cent. The Minister seems to have ignored the effect on farm incomes of the two summer revaluations in the green pound, which took place since his party has been responsible for agriculture policy.
Some of that is connected with the fact that the Government have abrogated their responsibility for the setting of interest rates and given it away to the Bank of England. I am sure that if we had been in charge none of that would have occurred. Labour has some responsibility for what has happened to sterling in respect of the appreciation against the green pound and the reductions in farm income that have taken place.
Despite the fact that a freeze occurred on certain green rates within some support schemes, the National Farmers Union has calculated that given the effect on prices of agriculture commodities there has been a loss in output value terms of between £1.7 billion and £11.8 billion. Higher estimates have been circulated, but I have chosen to quote lower figures because I believe that they are realistic. It has been suggested that losses could have been as high as £3.5 billion, a sum equivalent to that which we spent on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
The Minister will be aware that a new compensation mechanism was agreed under the new agri-monetary regime, which I am sure has been considered in considerable detail. I remember when the matter was debated in the House, when to the best of my recollection the then Labour Opposition did not oppose the adoption by the United Kingdom of the then proposals. I take that to mean that the then Labour Opposition agreed with them.


It is interesting that the Minister, who appeared before the Select Committee on Agriculture today, admitted under questioning, so it is reported, that about £980 million could be available to the United Kingdom for compensation for loss of value of farm output. That applies to losses incurred in the dairy, beef, cereals and sugar sectors. What do the Government intend to do within the remit of the mechanism?
So far the Minister has shown no enthusiasm for dealing with the problems now besetting certain agricultural sectors as a result of a severe and sudden drop in income. As the Minister knows, other member states facing circumstances similar to those confronting the United Kingdom have used the mechanism to which I have referred. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will comment on that. Germany, in particular, argued for the implementation of the mechanism when it, too, was facing a similar situation to that experienced by the United Kingdom. The Minister owes it to the House to explain why he chooses not to use the mechanism that was urged especially by Germany to deal with the broad range of issues, and why he is not prepared to do that in compensating farmers for the losses that they have incurred up to January 1998.
Is the Minister prepared to consider some of the sectoral impacts of the fall in farm incomes? He will know that in spite of the efforts to help the beef sector it continues to face considerable difficulties, certainly in terms of values.

Dr. John Cunningham: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Jack: It is all very well for the Minister to ask whose fault it is. The Minister is responsible for these matters and he represents the Government's views. The Opposition are asking questions on behalf of Britain's farmers in the rural community, and he owes them an answer. If the Minister is not prepared to compensate across the board, is he prepared to focus on the hardest-hit sectors? I am thinking especially of beef, sheep and dairy. Milk prices have fallen substantially and given the appreciation of sterling there is considerable import pressure. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can bring himself to focus on the genuine needs of the sectors to which I have referred, given the circumstances that I have described.
The second and substantive part of the motion relates to hill farming. I have alluded already to the cavalier way in which the Minister appears to be treating hill farmers. It is interesting to reflect on the terms in which the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that there would be an additional £60 million for hill and upland farmers. His announcement was the result of the normal discussions with hard-pressed hill farmers, and an additional £60 million was included in the hill livestock compensatory allowance for that year.
The Minister will know that rates have traditionally been set as a result of discussion between the Minister of the day and territorial representatives of each of the major farming organisations. So far, as I understand it, those representatives have been sent to talk to their territorial Ministers, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food having refused to meet them.

In a press release last year, the Minister stated:
This has been a difficult year for cattle farmers in the less-favoured areas.
The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the difficulties that were faced that year. Hill farmers will have reminded the Minister that the year to which they are looking in terms of HLCA will be no less difficult.
How has the Government's attitude been viewed so far in the farming press? Farmers Weekly on 19 September described the Minister's stance as "wanton vandalism". It stated:
There can be no other way to describe the government's decision to abandon hill farming to the chill winds of market economics. It has delivered two, possibly fatal, body blows to the future of hill farming.

Mr. John Gummer: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is being slightly unfair to the Minister. Surely the Minister is holding his meeting back until he can welcome the representatives of the farming organisations into his new offices, having spent £1 million of taxpayers' money tarting them up so that he can have a meeting. He does not want to have a meeting any earlier as there might then be suspicions that the refurbished offices are merely for his own interests and not to be shared by anyone else.

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend is right. Given that the hill farmers are struggling to keep a roof over the Minister's head, I am sure that he has taken careful note of what my right hon. Friend has said.
I shall put before the House an interesting letter that I received. In 1994 a Labour Member wrote these words to a farmer in Richmond about HLCAs:
We in the Labour Party recognise how important this payment is to hill farmers. We recognise the important role hill farmers have, both in terms of rural employment, environmental management and tourism. In that respect we do believe that HLCAs do offer very good value for money and we will strongly oppose any move by the government to reduce them.
Those comfortable words to hill farmers were uttered by none other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), in a letter to Mr. Davy of Richmond. How thin that diet now appears as the Minister connives with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to face hill farming with a difficult situation.
Let us consider what a letter from No. 10 Downing street tells us on the same subject. A letter to the same Mr. Davy of the Hill Farming Initiative contains the following:
Let me confirm straightaway that the Government is committed to the idea that hill farmers need special help".
That shows that the Government are thinking about the issue, but they are not exactly backing up their thinking with very much action.
The Minister wrote to Alistair Davy on 22 October 1997:
I know from my own constituency that incomes are under pressure".
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. More than 40 per cent. of hill farmers in England and Wales earn less than £10,000 a year. The Minister is choosing, however, to take a large sum away from these farmers.


I want the Minister, if he will, to concentrate on the lines that have been put to me by the Hill Farming Initiative. Those involved have made it clear that if the Minister does not recant, hill farmers will be short by about £60 million. The figures show that there will be a 20 per cent. loss in hill farm incomes, and some have suggested that the loss will be even greater. Is it the Minister's understanding that the loss in hill farming incomes projected for next year for those farmers with an average net income of between £10,000 and £16,000 will be between 20 and 25 per cent? Will he admit that there are real problems for hill farmers, especially with the debt load that they are carrying?
I draw the Minister's attention to an example—

Dr. John Cunningham: Please draw to a close.

Mr. Jack: The Minister asks me to draw to a close. When the truth is hurting the answer is no—I shall continue to give the Minister information.
I pass on to the Minister for his comment some information from the Hill Farming Initiative. Those involved point out to me that a farmer last year with £18,200 of net farm income—38 beef cows, six cows in heifer, 663 ewes and 89 gimmers, which the Minister will recognise as a typical modest-sized hill farm—faced with all the changes that will ensue as a combination of green pound rates and the expected reduction in HLCAs will be about £8,000 down next year. The Minister, so far, has turned his face against the real needs of the most vulnerable in the rural economy. It seems that the Minister is hitting the weakest hardest.

Mr. Robert Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the principal beneficiaries of the work of the Rural Development Commission are hill farmers, who will need all the help that they can get? The RDC has a fuddy-duddy image: that it is only about thatching, shoeing horses and saddlery. It is not; it is about high-tech help for rural communities and assistance for all rural hill farm communities as well as the wider rural community. Is he aware that the RDC is due for the chop under this Government? What a mean-minded trick.

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk will deal with that matter when he winds up.
The changes that the Minister made to the over-30-months scheme bear particularly heavily on hill farmers. How did he calculate the weight restriction that he has imposed? Why did he do it? I have been informed that it was on the basis of an analysis of the Irish cattle market. He seems to have got a very Irish result. He has chosen 560 kilos as a wholly arbitrary figure for the cut-off point for the over-30-months scheme. It is one of those situations where people choose the breed of cow that best suits the marketplace, then the Minister comes along and arbitrarily decides who will get maximum help and who will not. It is about time that he explained himself. It is particularly mean-spirited as far as hard-pressed dairy farmers are concerned. The Minister owes it to the House to deal with that issue.
There are other issues that cause the countryside to feel under threat at this time. In their amendment there is a clear indication that the Government are still keen on having a legal right to roam, with all the uncertainties that that causes for the countryside. Will the Minister pay attention? These are questions to which we shall want

answers. What representations will he make to his colleagues in Government about what is to be defined as moorland, heathland and downland in terms of the access schemes to be proposed? For instance, will downland that is currently farmed in a managed way be part of the open access policies? One thing that distinguishes our approach from the Government's approach is that we believed in managing access through agri-environmental schemes to applaud and support landowners who voluntarily made access to the countryside available. The Government's sole solution is to legislate. So far there is great uncertainty in the countryside about that matter.
The threats to country sports remain. I do not want at this stage to have the debate that will take place on 28 November, but I point out to the Minister that the countryside feels under siege. The pressures on rural sports are a threat to an industry which, in 1997, common resource consultants calculate to be worth £3.8 billion per year. The Government have sought, perhaps, to distance themselves from the Bill on fox hunting, which is to be debated on 28 November, but they will need to do more than that to reassure the countryside and farming interests that they have not got a long-term agenda to take away one of the most valuable contributors to the rural economy.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will make their own contributions to the debate to fill out some of the arguments that I have made, but the time has come, as the Walrus said, for the Minister to speak of many things. I hope that his reply will be forward looking and that it will respond to the real fears and concerns of country people. I want him to show that the fine words that he and his colleagues have uttered from time to time on the question of hills, the vital role that hill communities face and the work that they do in looking after that aspect of our countryside, will be sustained by his Ministry. I want him to show that he has at least some understanding of farming matters. If he does not do so, it will be absolutely clear to anybody in the country and the farming community that there is only one true voice for countryside matters in this country—the Conservative voice.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
deplores the neglect of the countryside and rural areas over the past eighteen years by the previous administration; congratulates the Government on its commitment to the countryside; welcomes the Government's intention to create the conditions necessary to let the rural economy flourish, to protect and enhance the rural environment and to enable everyone to enjoy the countryside; and further welcomes the start already made, notably on the reform of the CAP, the review of the Organic Aid Scheme, introducing Arable Stewardship, and reviewing the legislation for the protection of hedges and SSSIs.
I welcome the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) to his new position in the shadow Cabinet. He has taken over from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who has an enviable record in these matters and no doubt will be sorely missed—even though they might not recognise it yet—by the rest of the shadow Cabinet. We just wonder, given the ructions in the Conservative party at the moment and his well-known views on European issues, whether the right hon. Member for Fylde will survive until Agriculture questions on Thursday.


The right hon. Gentleman displayed a broad sense of humour in his speech and an easy facility for being rather careless with the facts. I remind him that he promised us that in the course of his speech he would tell us where he would conjure up the £60 million that is not in the provisions that we inherited from him and his colleagues in the previous Government. He made no mention of where it would come from.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me this opportunity. Perhaps between now and the close of the debate he will ask his officials to look at the underspend on the sheep annual premium, which possibly amounts to some £200 million. Will he also confirm that if he wishes to apply to the Treasury, he has, with its agreement, the ability within his budget to redirect the money to cover the £60 million shortfall on HLCAs?

Dr. Cunningham: Nevertheless it is true, although the right hon. Gentleman refuses to acknowledge it, that the previous Government made provision for one year and one year only. They made no on-going provision for this expenditure. That is the reality.
Members of the shadow Cabinet have chosen this topic for debate on the forlorn ground that somehow they think it sensible as an area on which to attack the Government. They claim that they represent the countryside and the people who live there. Sadly for them, that is no longer—if it ever was—the case. They misrepresented the countryside. That is true. They misrepresented the countryside so badly that, on 1 May this year, the people in the countryside drove out the Tories in very large numbers and gave huge support to Labour candidates, so much so that Labour Members of Parliament not only represent more rural constituencies than Conservatives these days but represent more rural constituencies than Conservatives and Liberal Democrats put together. If there is any true voice in the countryside at the present time, it is the Labour voice that is speaking up for rural areas.
In Scotland, in rural areas or urban areas, the Tories have no voice in the House. It is the same in Wales. They have been rejected comprehensively by the Scottish and Welsh people, who have supported Labour, by and large, for a generation. I have represented one of the most rural constituencies in England for 27 years. Labour is the real party representing the countryside. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were driven out because of their incompetence over 18 years in failing effectively to serve rural communities.
Let us have a brief résumé of the record. Bus deregulation has left rural communities trapped and isolated. That was one of the Conservative Government's brilliant ideas. There was the threat to privatise the Post Office in rural areas and cities, which, fortunately, was headed off by the Post Office workers. There was also a threat to rural railways and housing association homes. The Conservative Government even wanted to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales until they were defeated on that, too, by a combination of the National Farmers Union and the Transport and General Workers Union.
The Conservative Government left high, persistent, levels of unemployment, low incomes and rural deprivation. All that before we even come to their record

on agriculture or fishing. They were isolated in Europe, devoid of credibility and support where it mattered in European Councils. Common agricultural policy reform was not even on the agenda when they left office. The fishing industry and fish conservation was left in a shambles. In addition, they failed to act on the sale of fishing quota, which went on under their Administration.

Mr. Jack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: Not for the moment.
BSE gave rise to a catalogue of indecision and ineptitude, which is taking billions of pounds to rectify, and resulted in a global ban on British beef. The shambles in which the Conservative Government left the British beef industry cost the British taxpayer £1.33 billion last year and will cost more than £2 billion more in the next two to three years, yet the right hon. Gentleman dares to say that the Conservative party speaks for the countryside.
There were disastrous failures in food hygiene and a loss of confidence in food safety and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Conservative Government also had an abysmal record on support for organic farming, the worst in the EU. After 18 years of Conservative government only 0.3 per cent. of our farming is organic.
Labour was elected because of its real commitment to all the British people, including those in the countryside, and to rural issues. We recognise the needs of all those who live and work in rural areas, not just those who wear blue Barbour jackets and green wellies and ride around in Range Rovers, which is the epitome of the forlorn, bedraggled and minor Tory voice left in the British countryside.

Mr. Jack: Is that the best that the right hon. Gentleman can do when it comes to dealing with those on the lowest incomes, such as the hill farmers? [Interruption.] That is the real substance of the debate and the right hon. Gentleman had better get to it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. The only voice that I should hear is that of the Minister.

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman made a long speech and has already made two interventions. I shall get to the substance of the matter quickly—a lot more quickly than he did.
We recognise the special needs of those who live and work in rural areas and we shall ensure greater protection for wildlife, as well as people, in our rural areas. We recognise that the countryside requires careful stewardship, enabling the needs of people who live and work in rural areas to be met in a sustainable fashion. The previous Administration failed in that regard too.
We support reform of the CAP in order to reduce the burden that it imposes on taxpayers and consumers and to free resources to support the rural economy and enhance the environment. In addition, yes, we will give people greater freedom to explore their countryside. There is no doubt about our commitment to that.
The Government believe that the countryside is a vital national resource and a key part of the economy.

Mr. Richard Spring: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No, not for the moment.


If the countryside is to be protected and enhanced, we must recognise that its purpose and identity are as important as that of towns and cities. The countryside is the workplace or home for many, as well as a place of recreation for many others. It is also the habitat for much of our wildlife. It is essential that we all strive towards sustainable use of the countryside for this and future generations.
When the right hon. Gentleman said, as he did more than once, that country sports are under threat, he was, again, completely misleading the House. There is no threat to angling or shooting in the countryside. As has already been demonstrated, there is overwhelming support in the House and in the countryside for the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster).
The Government have set out their commitment to opportunity, fairness and prosperity for all, whether they live in cities or rural areas. At the same time, they recognise the distinctive needs of people in rural communities. The Government intend to make rural areas a better place in which to live and work. That is the background against which policy will be formulated. Now I shall address some specific policies.
A healthy rural economy is central to the Government's integrated approach to rural issues. It is important for many reasons—to support our economic growth, for conservation and to combat social exclusion and poverty. Wages are still low and unemployment is still too high everywhere as a result of the Conservative Government's approach, and there are pockets of deprivation in the countryside with high unemployment, often because of the scattered nature of rural communities, the narrow economic base and the shortage of employment and training opportunities.
The Government intend to tackle all those issues in order to help create the conditions necessary to allow rural enterprise to flourish and to develop a diverse and vibrant rural economy.
Our countryside is defined by agriculture which, in turn, is largely shaped by the current system of support. That is why reform of the CAP is a major priority for the Government. To that end, we will work hard and constructively with the European Commission and our European partners, in all the EU institutions, unlike the previous Government, who were such an abysmal failure in Europe that they had no friends and no support for anything that they wanted to do.
The Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals are a welcome step towards that reform and are of major significance for rural policy. The package is not as radical as I would have wished and as the Government would have liked and there are elements in it, such as the proposal to retain milk quotas, which are disappointing. Nevertheless, it is important to have proposals on the agenda and we shall work with our colleagues in the Council and the Commission who want to progress them.
The proposals for rural agri-environment policy are also welcome. In particular, it makes sense to create integrated rural development measures which will apply throughout the Community. That offers the prospect of closer integration between environmental and rural development measures and the availability of a wider range of targeted measures outside those areas qualifying for special help. In those special areas we shall work to ensure that the UK receives a fair share of funding.
In future, the intention is that eligible rural areas will benefit from objective 1 status, in a similar way to now. Objective 5b, which has benefited a wide range of rural areas, will be phased out, but fragile rural areas will be eligible, along with others, for aid from a new objective 2 proposal. We will work to ensure that the rural parts of those new objective 2 areas receive an appropriate share of the support available.
In the longer term, further reform of the CAP will be necessary, not least as part of the next round of agriculture negotiations in the World Trade Organisation, which is due to start at the beginning of the new century. It is our intention to secure the phasing out of production-linked support. That would yield consumer benefits and substantial budgetary savings, some of which could be used to support targeted schemes to help rural development, rural economies and the rural environment.
We heard much from the right hon. Gentleman about expenditure proposals, but he did not put a price on what he had to say. That is quite a change for a former Treasury Minister who, when in government, used to stand at the Dispatch Box and demand to know the cost of every Opposition proposal. He did not do any costings of his proposal, so I took the precaution of doing some for him.
The right hon. Gentleman misled the House about green pound compensation. I said that £980 million was available under that general heading, but only half of it could come direct from Brussels; the other half would have to come from the United Kingdom. Thanks to the negotiations carried out by the previous Administration, of that Brussels half, 71 per cent. would have to come from the British taxpayer. So the first part of the bill for the right hon. Gentleman's motion is £340 million of extra public expenditure.
The right hon. Gentleman complained about the changes to the over-30-months scheme. If we went back to the status quo, as he seemed to suggest, that would cost another £40 million minimum. He did not put a price on his demands on hill livestock compensatory allowances, but he mentioned a figure of £60 million, so we will add that to the total. That takes us to £440 million of additional public expenditure, which is the cost of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. Where does he propose that should come from? Tax increases? Does he want it to be taken from other budget headings, such as health, education or training? He made no suggestion about that, because he knows that the whole proposal is so fraudulent as to be laughable. That is the cost of his menu without prices: with prices it is in excess of £400 million.

Mr. Jack: I have already supplied an answer to the question of hill livestock compensatory allowances. With great respect, the Minister has not read our motion. We asked him how he intends to respond to the calls from farmers, particularly hill farmers, on these issues. So far, all we have had is an accounting exercise. The Minister will not answer the questions that we posed.

Dr. Cunningham: It is a bit rich for a former Treasury Minister to call it an accounting exercise. Does he think that we do not have to keep the books? Is that what he proposes?

Mr. Jack: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: I shall not give way again: I have given way three times already. I am not having any more of his long, boring, convoluted interventions thank you very much.


The right hon. Gentleman must face the fact that he is demanding that British taxpayers should, one way or another, produce a minimum of an additional £440 million to support the motion. There is no way that we can realistically provide anything like that sum of money.

Mr. Gummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way for the moment. We shall deal with these issues.

Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman is frit.

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman flatters himself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Member for Fylde suggested that I had failed to talk to farmers about HCLAs.

Mr. Jack: HLCAs.

Dr. Cunningham: HLCAs, that is right. I met Sir David Naish and his colleagues to discuss this subject just last week.

Mr. Jack: For English farmers.

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, and my Scottish colleagues met Scottish farmers, the Secretary of State for Wales has met farmers in Wales and the same will happen in Northern Ireland. When that round of consultation has finished, we shall discuss the outcome. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we have already made up our minds about these matters is completely bogus: I have said no such thing.
As for agri-monetary compensation, I have told farmers exactly what I am telling the House now and what I told the Select Committee on Agriculture this morning. I am not persuaded that the case has been made. I have not said no, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. I shall keep the matter under review, and I have until January next year for some of the potential compensation and even longer than that to make up my mind.

Mr. Gummer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he help us on the question of the £200 million underspend? Does that underspend exist? If so, could he apply it? We are not asking him to say now whether he will apply it. Has that £200 million already been taken by the Treasury? If he could help the House, we would know whether or not he has the money.

Dr. Cunningham: No money from the existing budget has been taken by the Treasury. I shall find out whether the assertion of the right hon. Member for Fylde is true, and we can then consider it. I am not convinced that it is true, but we shall see.

I shall return to the speech that I was making before the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) intervened. The previous Government's scheme to encourage conversion to organic farming offered the lowest rates in the European Union. We are urgently studying the structure and rates of that aid scheme with a view to raising the profile and quantity of organic farming in Britain. However, organic farming is not the only way to bring environmental benefits, nor will it suit every farmer or every consumer. We have taken broader steps to protect and enhance the countryside. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are currently undertaking a joint review of countryside policy.
The right hon. Member for Fylde criticised us for not having produced a White Paper on the countryside. It took the Conservative Government 16 years to produce a White Paper, and he criticises us for not having produced one in six months. The criticism is absurd, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Like the road to hell, their White Paper was paved with good intentions but made no specific proposals that were acted on by the Conservative Government.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the environment. Surely it is most important for the rural environment to remain inhabited. Neither the Government nor the official Opposition have expressed concern about family farms and smallholdings, which are under great threat. Geraint Jones, a farmer, wrote to me and said—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Dr. Cunningham.

Dr. Cunningham: We know there are problems. I would be the first to acknowledge that there are pretty serious problems, because I represent hill farmers. The idea that we can resolve those problems within six months of taking office, or provide the resources on the scale that the right hon. Gentleman pretends is possible, is frankly absurd, and people know that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) says, from a sedentary position, that we have made matters worse. During the election, we campaigned on a proposal to stay within the previous Government's spending policies. Conservative Members supported and voted for those spending policies, but now that they are in opposition, they criticise them. They pushed their spending proposals through the House of Commons. They supported them then, and within six months of losing office they are criticising them. The right hon. Gentleman's opportunism and that of his hon. Friends is transparent and naked in its vulnerability.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Like me, my right hon. Friend has hill farmers in his constituency. The previous Government's failure is shown by the amount of land that has gone out of production and by the number of farmers who have ceased to farm.

Dr. Cunningham: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that in some of the dales in my constituency, where there were once five or six farms, there are now one or two. People have left the land and others have bought the farms and amalgamated them


simply because, over years, people could not make even a subsistence living under the previous Government's policies.
We are committed to supporting the biodiversity action plans that have been drawn up for many of our important and threatened species and habitats. With our encouragement, flax processors have introduced a protocol that should end farmers ploughing up land of conservation value to gain the large subsidy available for that crop. We are looking at ways of strengthening the protection for hedges and sites of special scientific interest with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and her colleagues in the Department.
We have made major progress on better, more effective animal welfare policies in six months in office. On the problem of BSE and the beef ban, we have made more progress in six months in Brussels than the previous Government made in 18 months.
We are introducing a pilot arable stewardship scheme to enhance biodiversity in arable areas and particularly address the serious decline of many of our well-loved birds, such as the skylark. We have noted concerns about the protection of various areas of outstanding natural beauty and look forward to receiving advice in the spring from the Countryside Commission.
This ragbag of an Opposition motion and the speech of the right hon. Member for Fylde—a former Agriculture Minister and a former Treasury Minister—simply beggars belief. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is reading."' If hon. Members really want to know, it does not actually say that in front of me. The suggestion that, somehow, the Government are not concerned about the position of farmers is nonsense. Compensation is not without cost, as I pointed out. The compensation scheme available requires a 71 per cent. contribution from the Government and taxpayers.
Turning to the point by the right hon. Member for Fylde on the over-30-months scheme, I believe that farmers have had a reasonable amount of time to adapt to the changed circumstances brought about by BSE and the introduction of the scheme. When the changes were made, I met representatives of the National Farmers Union. We invited them to suggest alternative proposals. I said that, if they could come back to me with alternative proposals which suited them and the union's members better, I would be happy to try to persuade Brussels to accept them. The sad reality was that they were unable to reach any agreement on any set of proposals to substitute for the ones that came from Brussels in the first place.
On HLCAs, I would more than welcome, as I have said to the right hon. Member for Fylde, the Opposition's advice on how they think that we could continue with the £60 million provision which they made for one year only.

Mr. Jack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: I am not giving way any more. That provision for one year only was coincidentally in the year before a general election.

Mr. Jack: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: I am not giving way any more.
Although we wish to help farmers whenever possible, the Government were elected with a clear commitment to remain within the previous Government's predetermined

public expenditure totals, for which the right hon. Gentleman voted. Unlike the previous Tory Government, this Government will keep their promises.
I asked the right hon. Member for Fylde earlier, although he did not reply—

Mr. Jack: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: No, 1 am not giving way again. It is clearly a waste of time to do so. The right hon. Gentleman did not suggest extra taxation or transferring resources from anywhere else. As I have said, he has tried to get through the debate without putting any price on his proposals.
The Conservative party's condemnation of the Government for not introducing
policies to protect small village shops and rural post offices
is an act of desperation rather than a coherent line of policy given its policies in that area, especially Post Office privatisation proposals. The Government will push ahead with our manifesto pledge for greater freedom for people to explore the countryside. Not only is it important to preserve and enhance the landscape and wildlife; it is important that everyone should be able to enjoy it. We are firm in that commitment but we are equally determined to respect the rights of those who live and work in the countryside. We will work closely with all those involved and shortly publish a consultation paper on the matter.
I have demonstrated the Government's commitment to rural communities. We have taken many issues forward in the past six months. The Government aim to create a healthy, sustainable rural economy. The development of an integrated approach, better use of resources and effective European policies can combine to help us create it. The previous Administration never even tried to do so on that basis.
With a new Labour Government, the prospects for our countryside and the people who live, work in and depend on it are better than ever. I urge the House to reject the fraudulent Tory motion and support the Government amendment.

Mr. David Curry: I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the real situation in agriculture as seen in my constituency, which is a fragile one of uplands and difficult farming, where there are some of the most difficult conditions in the United Kingdom. What he has said in this debate will not bring one crumb of comfort to farmers in my constituency who fear for their livelihoods.
If farmers who fear for their livelihoods are forced to quit the land, enormous support of the landscape, the environment and wildlife will go with them. Finding an alternative means of supporting the land, keeping the landscape and enabling people to enjoy it will cost more than the maintenance of farmers on that land. They know about that countryside and that landscape.
There is a real crisis that affects the lifeblood of my constituency, which is typical of many in the uplands of the United Kingdom—whether in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or large parts of England. Three elements are fuelling the crisis. Price cuts following revaluation


have brought the dairy prices for a Milk Marque producer down to 20p, with whatever quality payments might be available.
Cuts in the over-30-months compensation scheme, especially to the weight limit, are bound to hit suckler herds, which are characteristic of uplands and difficult areas. Farmers there do not have a range of choice of breeds. A Charolais or Belgian Blue-based herd in my constituency suffers immediately from such a cut.
Cuts in beef prices have been disastrous. I was at the Craven auction mart yesterday—I am afraid that I shall mention it frequently. The following are yesterday's prices; what farmers are getting at the moment; the actual situation to within 24 hours of the present. Farmers in the Craven auction mart are talking not about biodiversity action plans but about the beef price. That is what matters to them.
For steers, farmers are getting 90p a kilo. Two years ago, it was 115p. Heifers fetch 97p a kilo, but two years ago they were sold for 135p a kilo. The best price for the most fashionable and desirable Belgian Blue is about 138p a kilo, yet the same beef was bringing in more than 200p a kilo two years ago.

Dr. John Cunningham: That was before BSE.

Mr. Curry: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I represent hill farmers. He represents hill farmers. I am concerned about their situation now, and appealing to him to do something about it. He understands it.

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman should not compare prices now with prices before the BSE crisis. That is just a cheat.

Mr. Curry: It does not seem a cheat to farmers. The prices affect their income, what goes into their bank balances, their collateral, what the bank manager has to judge. If the right hon. Gentleman told farmers at Craven auction mart that they should not compare prices because it is a cheat, it would not help their bank balances or their livelihoods.
There is a problem, and I would like to help the right hon. Gentleman to solve it. Plenty of cattle are still being sold at 80p a kilo. He mentioned that there might be a hill livestock compensatory allowance review. It certainly does not feel as if there is to be one to the farmers in my constituency.
For a dairy farmer, the combination of cuts in cull cow compensation and price cuts for heifers and bull calves means that the farm income for a 55 or 60-strong dairy herd, which is a typical size, especially in Wales, is £13,000 to £15,000 down on last year's profit. In the past few months, no fewer than 15 small dairy farmers in my constituency have sold their whole undertaking at the Craven auction mart. That is the extent of the haemorrhage affecting the dairy herd.
Of course, that option is not open to many hill farmers, because they are locked into the land and cannot get away so easily. They do not have quotas, as dairy farmers have, which are immediately marketable and, in fact, provide pensions for some of the older farmers. They depend on the HLCAs to the tune of 90 per cent. or more, and they have been hit by the cattle price and the sheep price.

I am sorry to keep coming back to the Craven mart, but the prices there represent the farmers' incomes, because it is their marketplace. Mule wether lambs were selling for £38 to £42 in August, but the same animals are now £34 to £35. That fall has happened in a matter of months, so the same problem is occurring even in the sheepmeat sector, which is normally regarded as having done well.
Upland farmers cannot walk out, so we see increasing poverty. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was right about one thing—people in the countryside work for very low wages—sometimes for what we would regard as pocket money. Poverty in the countryside is much less obvious than in the town, because the communities are more remote and it is therefore less easy to treat. The sheer levels of despair that are reached—the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is nodding, because he knows this is true—are very serious indeed. The Government can help.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned the green pound revaluation and the weight limits. On that subject, I wonder whether the Government have achieved savings on the suckler premium, because that has been affected by the revaluation. The suckler premium savings might enable the Minister to lift the weight limit on suckler herds only, which would be an enormous help, which could be targeted on some of the most vulnerable sectors.
The Government should conduct a proper HLCA review. The cost of doing nothing may be bearable in the short term, but in the long term the fabric of rural life and landscape—which we value and which the Minister says he values—is at risk from what is happening. That is not just a farmer's whinge. Everybody is used to epigrammatic remarks about farmers always being miserable, but the current problems go to the very heart of their livelihoods and of life in my constituency and other rural areas.
I can tell the Minister that the hills are bleeding, and, if the Government do nothing, the hills will soon be dying. That is not the only fear. People have fears about access, and the Government could do a service by tidying up the many untidy bits of legislation on access. It is not right for the diversion of a footpath to cost £10,000 and take seven years. There is a good case for tidying up the legislation and introducing voluntary access agreements with landowners.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I am concerned about the fate of the Rural Development Commission and the absorption of objective 5b into objective 2. Will the Government continue the single regeneration budget universally across the country, or pull it back to the cities? Not a word has been said on that by the relevant Department since the Government came to power. It appears to be one of the few matters that the Government are not reviewing at the moment.
I am concerned about local authority services. The Government claim to have helped education and health, but personal social services will face a crisis this year. That crisis will affect many elderly people living in residential homes in remote communities.
What will the Government do about planning? The Minister is a decent man, and he represents an upland constituency. I know that he understands the problems and would like to support his constituents. He knows, because


he talks to farmers and the other country people who come to see him and he goes about his constituency, that the problems are the same throughout the country.
We all accept the financial constraints on Governments—although the Government have had a Budget and the opportunity to change their priorities—but what matters is the livelihood of the people on whom we depend to maintain a certain sort of countryside and way of life. Those people are crucial to the countryside, and we want to preserve them. If the right hon. Gentleman does nothing, we will not succeed. If he is prepared to act, we can look forward to seeing succeeding generations in that precious and vital landscape that we all wish to enjoy.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I crave the indulgence of the House, because I wish to speak on another aspect of the rural economy, which has nothing to do with farming. I speak with reasonable authority, because I was a professional geologist when I had a proper job. I emphasise at the beginning that more than 100,000 people are involved in the minerals extraction industry in this country, much of which is based in rural areas and which contributes enormously to the rural economy.
Britain is underlain by rocks of an extraordinarily rich variety. Those minerals have been used since pre-history in every facet of this island's social and commercial life. Boxgrove man knapped flints from chalk cliffs 500,000 years ago; Roman colonists obtained gold, silver and lead from Cornubia; Wealden iron made the guns that defeated the Spanish armada; and our coal resources fuelled the industrial revolution. That extraordinary revolution was built on the mineral wealth of this country. It provided the raw materials for the chemical industry, the sand and gravel and limestone for concrete, and the oil and gas that now drives most of our modern transportation system.
Despite the demonstrable value of the minerals industry to the national economy, the widespread public perception is of an industry that has squandered the earth's resources, despoiled the landscape and polluted the environment. I say to the Government, as I would have said to the previous Government, that they cannot base a policy on the opinions of the last pressure group that Ministers spoke to. We need a properly planned minerals policy. I speak not on behalf of the industry, but on behalf of the more than 100,000 people who are involved in the industry, many in rural areas where there is no other option for work.
Apart from the jobs and prospects in rural communities, the industry is enormously valuable to the country. The total value of minerals production in the United Kingdom is some £17 billion a year, including industrial minerals such as fluorspar, barytes, salt, potash, fuller's earth and special clays, and construction minerals such as crushed rock, national aggregates, gypsum and common clay. Many hon. Members have quarries and works in their constituencies that extract those vital minerals for our economy.
Mineral production in Britain is now dominated by oil, followed by coal, but other vital non-metallic minerals are very important, including crushed rock, limestone, sand and gravel. They are essential to our construction industry and in the development of our cities, which are probably the greatest despoilers of the environment, especially when the Government allow intrusion into the green belt.
Britain is a major minerals producer on a world scale. More than 80,000 people are employed directly by the industry, and many are employed, especially in the rural communities, in transporting the minerals to the consumer through heavy road vehicles and rail freight haulage. In addition, much of the revenue generated and derived from mining and quarries supports secondary industries in their areas, which often have few alternative sources of employment.
Negative perceptions of the industry are often trotted out by certain pressure groups. The first is that it squanders the earth's resources. That is simply not true. The record of mineral production through time shows clearly that, while individual mineral deposits can be worked out, known reserves have increased with time.
The second charge levelled at the industry is that it despoils landscapes. That also is not true. The industry may be an unwelcome neighbour in some areas—particularly for people who have come from the city to live in the country. They may not want to see any development of the rural economy, but, on the other hand, most people who live in rural communities welcome this way of earning a living outside agriculture.
An unavoidable fact at the heart of this debate which needs to be tackled by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is that Britain is a small and crowded island with many different demands for land use. The limits of free market principles and deregulation, which were the wont of the Tory party when it was in power, need to be closely addressed.
Having listened to the shadow spokesman, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), I must say that I was amazed by his attitude and his calls for Government intervention—this is the only industry in which the Conservatives want the Government to play a part. Certainly, when the Conservatives were decimating British industry, I wished that they had interfered positively.
Planning decisions are desperately important, but they must be balanced with land use and the reconciliation between local desires and the national interest when an application is called in by a Department and examined at a public inquiry. The effect of minerals operation on the local environment in an aesthetic sense has to be balanced against the value to the local economy and whether the mineral is vital and is not available elsewhere.
It is important to recognise that aggregates extraction takes up only a minute area of the British landscape—something like 0.3 per cent. Oddly enough, the figure is declining rapidly, because the process of rehabilitation currently exceeds the present extraction rate. After mineral planning guidance 6 in 1994, the then Government were positive and said that there ought to be a rundown of primary extraction and greater use of recycling material.
There are some who say that MPG6 did not go far enough, and they would like to see the closing of limestone quarries and gravel workings, for example. They say that, if we cut the road building programme, it would reduce the demand for road stone.
The important thing to remember is that road building under the Conservatives was cut by such a degree that, in England, only one national scheme was started in 1995-96, and there is a huge backlog of maintenance


need. If no new roads were constructed by 2010, the demand for primary aggregates would be likely to increase by about 25 per cent.
I mention that because it is important to remember that 80 per cent. of the demand for primary aggregates leads not to road construction but to improvements in housing, schools, hospitals, railways, factories, inner cities, recreational facilities and amenities, sewage treatment works and a host of other essential uses. That is a positive contribution by the countryside economy to those who live in urban areas.
There is a conflict between landscape and the use of the countryside in this positive sense. But this must be balanced, and it can be balanced only by the Government adopting a constructive policy on mineral extraction. It is right for the industry to seek to create wealth from our natural resources, and it is equally right that neighbours should be entitled to object to activities which impinge—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.

Mr. Paul Tyler: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am a last minute stand-in for my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) who is undertaking duties in the Standards and Privileges Committee. Any shafts of wisdom in the next few minutes come from me, while anything of a more prosaic nature comes from my hon. Friend's script.
I know that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has had to leave the Chamber for another engagement. I have made my apologies to him, because I must congratulate him on his speech and thank him not only for his contribution to tonight's debate, but for the way in which he has suggested how much better the debate would have been if he were still on the Conservative Front Bench. All of us who represent hill farmers and less-favoured areas know that the right hon. Gentleman sincerely believes that we can work together to help them. That is in sharp contrast to the new Conservative spokesman, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Jack), who seemed to be suffering from the most extraordinary case of amnesia.
The countryside is under siege—we all know that. What is extraordinary about the motion is that, for some incredible reason, Conservative Members seem to think that that siege started on 2 May. That is patently ridiculous. How they have the nerve to table the motion, I do not understand. To his credit, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon did not speak in those terms, but instead spoke about trying to help those who have been hardest hit by many years in which hill farmers have been decimated by Government policies. Many in those communities would have been more impressed by the speech by the right hon. Gentleman than by the absurd attack by the right hon. Member for Fylde.
The countryside is under siege because of successive policies over a long period by urban-minded Governments from both sides, and we would do well to recognise that. Time after time in this House, Liberal Democrats have stood up for hill farmers, and we have had support from hon. Members from all parties. Indeed, some notable

Labour Members have supported us on those occasions. I hope that we will have their support in a few weeks' time.
I take the Minister's point that the review of HLCAs has not yet taken place and that he has not come to a conclusion. We shall hold him to that, and we expect him to respond to the facts being put before him, not just by the fanning unions but by the Country landowners Association and the Hill Farming Initiative.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Does my hon. Friend welcome the Minister's assurance that no decision has been made yet about HLCAs? I represent an area that is not only less favoured but severely disadvantaged and if our hill farmers do not receive positive help in the near future, many will go out of business.

Mr. Tyler: That is the case in many less-favoured areas. We look to the Minister to live up to the impression that his predecessors gave when in opposition, that they would be the hill farmers' champions.
The Conservatives have a miserable record in that respect: they cut, cut and cut again, even when the figures showed that, merely to compensate for reductions in income, which is what the hill livestock compensatory allowance is all about, payments would have been increased. We led the charge year after year—we shall do so again this year—and we look to the Government to live up to promises made in opposition.
Hill Farming Initiative estimates that, in this twelvemonth, there will be a cut of one fifth, on top of the previous cuts in incomes. We are determined to restore the real level of the HLCA to what it was in 1992, and we expect the Labour party to come with us.
The green pound revaluation has been mentioned several times and the figure is clearly considerable. The Minister rightly says that not all the money will come from Brussels, but a substantial sum can come from Brussels and is sitting there waiting for us. If we do not pick it up, our competitor countries in the European Union will use it to put their farmers in a better competitive position than ours. Every day that goes by with our Minister failing to pick up what is rightly ours gives British taxpayers' money to our competitors, making the famous level playing field even less level.
The same goes for the cut in the over-30-months scheme payments. I find it extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Fylde had nothing more to say about BSE. It is incredible. After the 18 months of dither, delay and shambles—as the farmers kept saying—over BSE, it is extraordinary that a Conservative spokesman can say that increasing OTMS payments is all that needs to be done to help the livestock sector and beef producers in particular.
There is a major problem with the weight system, and farmers in the lowland areas, where animals are fed on grass, will be especially disadvantaged—that will feed through the entire livestock sector—but to alter that will not be enough.
The Minister recently said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West that he is actively considering a full-scale inquiry into what went wrong with BSE. I hope that there will soon be an announcement about that, because it is about time that we exposed the 18 months of confusion caused by the


Conservative Government and their 10 years of mismanagement of BSE. On several occasions in the previous Parliament, I pressed Ministers to come clean, but they failed to do so. I hope that we shall now get the full-scale inquiry that the farming community deserves, so that we can identify what went wrong and ensure that it does not happen again.
The pressing issue of the BSE crisis is not the export ban but the failure to act effectively and vigorously to ensure that imports are of the same standard that we insist on from our own producers. The Minister announced a welcome initiative in the summer when he told us that he would introduce restrictions to ensure that products imported from other European Union countries, and countries outside the EU, were monitored to the high standards that we insist on in this country. We understand why the previous Government were only too happy to let in cheap imports for their friends in food processing and supermarket chains, but there is no excuse for the present Government not to act.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon mentioned prices. Prices in the market are affected far more by those imports than by the export ban. Of course we want to get rid of the export ban, but it would be a real start if we achieved parity throughout the European Union in controls, monitoring, restrictions and effective steps to ensure that no BSE-affected meat could ever again reach consumers in this country. It is a scandal that imports are allowed in from countries that have declared instances of BSE and are not operating on a level playing field.
I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), will respond more fully on the general issue of development and jobs. I regret deeply the threat to the Rural Development Commission, which will have an extremely important role, regardless of whether there are regional development agencies. The Government, like the previous Government, seem not to understand that there are rural environmental considerations that are completely separate from the urbanisation that has so often caused such difficulty.
That is also true, for example, with the jobseeker's allowance. All of us who represent rural constituencies must know that young people have great difficulty in meeting the constraints of the allowance because of transport problems but, as I understand it, the Government have made no attempt to adjust what they inherited from their predecessors and to adapt the requirements to the needs of rural communities.
The same is true of rural training, help for rural businesses, and advice on premises and finance. Jobs in rural areas are invariably less well paid, often give less choice, and are difficult to plan for in the new environment that the Government have inherited and seem not to be prepared to change.
Clearly, there needs to be a better balance in planning. In recent months, we have seen the Government's failure to come forward with a national plan to cope with the anticipated increase in households.

Mr. Tom Brake: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was unfortunate that Ministers said that rural land was up for grabs? Does he agree that the matter of 4.4 million homes needs to be

treated with great sensitivity and in consultation with the rural and urban communities that will be affected by that massive development?

Mr. Tyler: I agree very much with my hon. Friend and I hope that the Under-Secretary will examine that point when she replies.
The Government face a major problem, but it is a problem of their own making. In an admirable confession a few minutes ago, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that he had had to adopt the previous Government's spending restrictions. Who said that he had to adopt them? [HON. MEMBERS: "The electors."[The electors said nothing of the sort. Did the electorate say that the new Government had to adopt those expenditure limits for two years? Of course they did not. What bunkum! Every councillor in the country knows that that is not true. The suggestion that the Minister had to adopt the expenditure constraints is ludicrous. By cloning the Tory Budget, the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues have adopted a straitjacket in agriculture as in so many other areas of public policy.
The Minister referred to the common agricultural policy reform programme. Clearly, far too much of his predecessor's menu has, again, been swallowed hook, line and sinker. We must achieve some subsidiarity over issues such as modulation so that we can have more local and regional control over the way in which they operate. It would be fatal for the Government to go into negotiations on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and to find themselves landed with modulation at European level. That would be absurd and would not fit the circumstances in the United Kingdom.
I acknowledge that the Government are looking positively at ways in which European funding arrangements can be adjusted to suit our needs. I hope that that is true of the new objective 2 status areas. There is, however, a real problem about which those of us in 5b areas already know. I refer to the absurd red tape, the maladministration and the slow administration of existing funding in 5b areas.
We shall find that, at the end of the full period of 5b status, we have taken up about 50 per cent. of the money available to us from British taxpayers as well as other taxpayers. My colleague the Member of the European Parliament for Cornwall and Plymouth West has calculated that we have got only about a quarter of what we deserve and can draw down from Brussels, although we are already halfway through the programme. If that happens again with objective 2, the Treasury may save a few million pounds, but little will be done to help the rural communities for which the programme is intended. It is vital that we speed up the process. If we do not, the whole programme will work to the advantage of our competitors in Europe and will do little to help us.
It is sometimes said that there is a conflict between environmental policies and those designed to help employment in rural areas. I do not believe that that is true. The work being done by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is particularly helpful in that respect because it demonstrates that, in agriculture and other country activities, there is a real chance to improve employment by the use of more explicit environmental programmes. The society says:
RSPB believes that maintaining wildlife is entirely compatible with better living standards for rural communities: a healthy countryside and strong local communities go hand in hand.


The needs of wildlife and their habitat are often regarded as an obstacle to rural development. What has become clear in our research on rural issues, is that the environment is a foundation stone for a healthy thriving rural community.
Nowhere more so than in the hills.
The right hon. Member for Fylde had somewhat more notice to prepare his speech than did I. It was not much more time but I find it mind-boggling, breathless cheek that he could describe the present dispensation on HLCAs as tawdry. Where was he for the past five years when his Government colleagues cut and cut and cut again? We then had a bit of staggering amnesia when he talked about the treatment of beef farmers. Where was he last year when they were hammering on the doors of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food calling for the resignation of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? Presumably, like most of the ostriches in the Treasury, he had his head in the sand.
Farmers have longer memories. They will not forget or forgive the Conservatives playing partisan politics this evening. We should have heard from their spokesman a speech along the lines of that of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who discussed the practical concerns of the countryside. If we had had more of that from the Conservatives, not only the House but the farming community would hold them in more respect.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: For one and a half hours of a three-hour debate to be taken up by the three Front-Bench spokesman is unacceptable, and an abuse of those of us on the Back Benches who have been trying to get in. Having said that, I was much diverted by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who represents probably the flattest constituency in England, lecturing my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who represents probably the most mountainous, on the problems of hill farming.
In the last Parliament, it was irritating to be told over and again by the Conservative Government that they represented rural interests about which the Opposition parties knew nothing. The right hon. Member for Fylde did not mention the document that the Labour party produced in the lead-up to the general election, "A Working Countryside", which ranged across the whole gamut of rural life and showed how the quality of life in rural areas such as mine depends not only on farming incomes, important though they are, but on the health service, transport systems, social services and education. The countryside is not set in aspic, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) once memorably said, but is part of a continuum with urban areas. There is no simple division between country people and urban people. They have different problems but they are not different species, as the Tories like to pretend. They often talk as if towns were surrounded by mediaeval walls and the people in them never went outside.
The debate has mainly been about farming, but I should like to make some disparate points, with which I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be able to deal at some point. I am glad that, with her wide brief, she is responding to this debate.
The countryside is under siege. An important point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) must be emphasised. We are told that we need an extra

4.4 million homes. I do not believe that such a quantity is needed, but that figure was adopted by the previous Government, and, as far as I know, is accepted by the present Government as an assumption. Please let that not involve huge developments in our villages. My constituency, for example, includes the beautiful village of Newburgh, where there was an attempt to bribe the community and the councils into building nearly 400 houses in a village that did not have so many to start with in return for a bypass provided by the developer. It was a great temptation for the village because it is pounded to pieces by traffic.
Brown land and the land surrounding new towns such as Skelmersdale should be the first areas to be considered for new housing and other building development. In north Wales, for example, the only piece of prime agricultural land is about to have factories built on it. It is currently farmed by one of my constituents. Right next to it are hundreds of acres of brown land in the form of the old steelworks which will not be developed. That is plainly crazy. The Country landowners Association was quite correct in its briefing paper on the need to take action to secure developers from future claims and to give further help in the clean-up of brown land and land that might be contaminated. We cannot have the green belt, which occupies most of my constituency, plundered by developers any longer.
I welcome the Government's plans to reduce investment in major roads and motorways, but small bypasses to deal with terrible bottlenecks in villages and small towns still have to be considered. All too often, ancient and beautiful old towns such as Burscough, Newburgh and Parbold in my constituency are being pounded to pieces.
There are also problems with public transport. There are enormous problems with isolation in rural areas, particularly for elderly people and those who do not possess cars. Under the Conservative Government my part of the world experienced the collapse of rural bus services almost into oblivion and the seemingly deliberate rundown of rural rail services. We need more halts and more stations, but the few that are being provided, such as that at Euxton in Lancashire, are not being provided by the railway companies: it is the county councils that have to find the money. We need more regular trains, later trains and trains on Sundays to enable people to communicate. The same applies to bus services. There is a great deal of scope for the integration of planning so that any domestic development in rural areas is concentrated around railway stations to encourage both the use of the station and less use of private cars.
Another completely separate problem in west Lancashire, part of Fylde and certainly part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) is the collapse of moss roads that were built over peat. Over the years, the peat has dried out, shrunk and collapsed, so the roads are collapsing. The county councils cannot—no highway authority could—fund the rebuilding of that elaborate road network, and, certainly since I have been involved in the county council and then in Parliament, there has been no Government help whatever to tackle the problem of moss roads. As farm vehicles get bigger and heavier, the problem becomes worse.


I could continue for hours, but as time is short I shall simply flag up the uglification of parts of our countryside and the plethora of road signs. Why do local authorities seem to require a separate post for every sign instead of putting them all on the same post? Why are signs getting bigger? Why are we providing public money to build wind turbines in environmentally sensitive areas such as Kirby moor in south Cumbria and, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) knows better than anyone, on Longridge fell? We have to tackle those idiotic planning monstrosities in our countryside.
Over the past 18 years many economic calamities have hit our villages and rural areas. They include the blow suffered by rural sub-post offices—because of some idiocy by the Government at the time—from which many have never recovered.
There are also tremendous problems with village schools. As people increasingly drive their children to schools in nearby towns, small village schools, which are usually the centre of the community, start falling to bits. The same problem affects village pubs, which are also centres of community life. They are hit by supermarket competition and by beer smuggling and the problems that arise from it.
It would be churlish not to mention that there has been some attempt to help village shops and sub-post offices through rate relief and grants from the Rural Development Commission to some small shops in select parts of the country. However, the full implications of almost every policy that applies to rural areas—or, indeed, every policy—should be put through a rural filter and through an environmental filter. That is what "A Working Countryside" sought to prefigure and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport deserve great credit for that document and the new direction it gave to Labour party policy.
The great advantage of urban living is the convenience of facilities provided to meet the needs of the critical mass available there. The great advantages of rural living are better air, relative quiet, relative isolation and so on; the downside is sparsity of services. The palliative—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. John Gummer: I would go along with much of what was said by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), especially his remarks about the need to protect the countryside from large-scale incursions of new housing. I wish that the Minister for London and Construction were here, because this is one of the few areas of environmental affairs where the present Government have departed significantly from the position that obtained before. The Minister said that we were naive to say that those 4.5 million houses could be built on brown land. Despite his attacking me for naivety, I am happy to be as naive as the Round Table on Sustainable Development and the Council for the Protection of Rural England in saying that we should be siting at least 75 per cent. of those new homes on brown land. I should like us to go further than that.

Mr. David Drew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I have only 10 minutes.

I should like to go further than that because it is good for the countryside and for the town to build on brown land. Indeed, I do not see how we can have a sensible regeneration policy for our urban areas if we allow people to take the easy option of building on green-field—especially green-belt—sites.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) is not here to explain why, at the time when she has been lucky to be able to buy a new house for herself, others are now facing the destruction of their rural area because Hertfordshire county council has declared by one vote—a vote over the Conservative minority—that it will release 800 acres of green-belt land between Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead, which are hardly kept apart at the moment, so that many new homes will be built on that land. Such decisions are damaging to our cities and to the countryside and I am sorry that the Government have decided to turn their backs on the policy that formerly obtained, which was that the green belt would not be damaged in that way.
I can recall only one occasion when I was Secretary of State when I gave permission for a substantial development in the green belt. People knew, therefore, that there was no point in asking for permission, so they had to get on with developing brown land. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will dissociate herself from the attacks on the protection of the green belt that we have heard from the Minister for London and Construction, who should look far more carefully at his policy if he is to be in tune with what I understand Government policy to be.
I also agree with the hon. Member for West Lancashire about the road signs. The only contribution made by the Liberal Democrat party in Suffolk was to put up a large number of signs. One entered a small village to be greeted by a great yellow sign saying "Peasenhall" and underneath it said, "Village", in case one did not know it was a village and might think that it was a combine harvester. The Liberal Democrats may have felt that they needed to tell people that it was a village because most of them were not country people representing the countryside but needed to be told about it. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) did himself no good at all with his comments about my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Tyler: Which one?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well which right hon. Friend I am referring to. He knows as well as I do that Liberal Democrat party policy on the countryside depends entirely on the constituency—[Interruption.] We all know that, and Labour Members know that it is true. Indeed, it does not even change from constituency to constituency; it changes from ward to ward. Where there is a vote to be garnered, a policy can be changed. If the vote of somebody who thinks differently can be gained, the principles can be changed, for nobody will notice. Comparisons seat by seat show perfectly well where the Liberal Democrats stand: where they think that they might win a vote. That is the only principle that has ever obtained in the Liberal Democrat party.
It is therefore reasonable to ask the Labour party, now that we have heard the less than eloquent speech by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, why it has


not yet explained to the House how, in times of such difficulties with money, it was possible to find £1 million to re-do the Agriculture Minister's offices. That sum might have been spent better on farming, but I do not know from which part of the budget it was taken. It was certainly not in the Red Book; nor was it part of the tight collar of which he spoke in respect of the previous Government. However, it is unusual for an Agriculture Minister who has been in position for six months not to know whether any money was left over from the sheep annual premium. He must be the first Agriculture Minister for many years not to have such a figure at his fingertips.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): rose—

Mr. Gummer: I should tell the hon. Gentleman who is rushing to the Minister's aid that I was not about to say something rude. I was simply going to mention why previous Agriculture Ministers always had that figure at their fingertips. 1 knew that if I did not have it, the Treasury would have pinched it and I wanted to defend it against the Treasury. I always knew the figure because the Treasury was always out for any little "candle ends", as it would say. I am worried that, if the current Agriculture Minister does not know the amount, it has probably gone already because the Treasury will have got its sticky fingers in there very rapidly.

Mr. Morley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I really should not give way because I promised to be brief. There will be plenty of time for summing up.
I understand that £200 million is available and I hope that the Agriculture Minister will sort that matter out rapidly. I hope that he will also look at the fact that the last Government put in train an operation that would have given special help to rural post offices and small shops in villages with only one shop. That would not have been affected by the regulations about how much money was available because we were going to use the same totality but put a little more into the countryside by helping those shops. We have heard nothing of that from the Labour party. There was silence when Labour Members were asked about it and I want to know where they stand. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will doubtless be able to tell us.
We then had a story about how the Government would reform the common agricultural policy, a matter of which I have some experience. I was unhappy about the Agriculture Minister's statement, which said that the Government wanted to take the money that was now used for production support and use it for the environment. I am very much in favour of that but did not like the sentence, which was dangerous. He said that "some" of the money "could" be used to help "targeted" environmental purposes. I do not like that at all. Some of it? Perhaps, but how much? Does "could" mean "will", or "only if we can get away with it"? Most people in rural areas listening to the Agriculture Minister will probably say that he is not standing up for them. They will say to themselves, "He does not know whether he has any money in his back pocket; he is not on top of the job; he obviously does not know the figures."
People will also say to themselves that the Minister lacks the fire to battle in the European Union. No one could be more enthusiastic about our place in the European Union than I am, but undoubtedly, because one believes in it one must battle there and fight for Britain. If the right hon. Gentleman is woolly about the funds that could be used to target, he will not get tuppence, or even a penny. He does not have a chance. He must go and fight.
I have heard from the Labour party no evidence of a desire to fight for the rural areas. I have heard no fire from Labour. Until we have a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who believes in them, feels for them and fights for them, we shall not have a hope in the rural areas.

Mr. David Drew: Because of the shortage of time allocated to me, I shall concentrate on the planning issue, following the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who talks a lot about planning and about brown-field development. The problem is that when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, he did not take the opportunity to question the figure of 4.4 million households that was quoted, and he made no proposals on how brown-field sites might be pressed into use. Now we are confronted with a very difficult problem, which we shall in due course debate and study to search for solutions.
I was intrigued that, although the word "planning" appears in the Opposition motion, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned it only superficially. That shows the depth of the Conservatives' concern about that key issue, which was taken up subsequently. Obviously, it is not as important in some respects as agriculture, but we must consider how it fits into the rural economy.
I, for one, will say that I question the numbers. I question the need for 4.4 million new households and I wish and hope that there will be a debate on the subject. My criticism is based on two presumptions.
First, it is not good enough to say that the figures for the previous 20 years will be replicated during the next 20 years. Major sociological changes are taking place, which need to be reflected in the forecasts. Secondly, in my area, much of the requirement is based on migration and I am pleased that, with colleagues, I have been able to do research to show that migration, which is the driving force, is slowing down. Unfortunately, that is not reflected in the figures.
I would ask this of the Government—and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, when he is listening: if and when this debate is taken up, I hope that we can get some genuine understanding of what the numbers mean and especially the implications of those numbers. I am one of the 170 Labour Members mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who represent a truly rural area, and my area is under development pressure. Those development pressures cannot be hidden from or escaped from; they must be dealt with rationally. Development must take place when it is needed and according to rules that are open and understood—not at the whim of developers.
The right hon. Member for Fylde failed to mention rural poverty—an issue that many hon. Members representing rural constituencies know too well from our surgeries, our mailbags and discussions with individual constituents.


It would be nice to think that hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench would feel guilt for what they did in the past 18 years. We have heard listed the policies that have increased poverty instead of reducing it: the deregulation of buses, the continuing decline in the number of shops and other services in the rurality, the imposition of signing on through jobseeker's allowance, which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned. The list goes on and on. It would be nice to see some remorse from Conservative Front Benchers. They have offered no solutions; they have not mentioned poverty or attempted to address the root cause of the problem by advancing ideas to deal with it. Poverty exists in our rural areas as well as in our inner cities, and we must introduce policies that address that terrible problem.
I am pleased, even at this late stage, to say that the Government will introduce a coherent platform not just on agriculture and rural areas, but on the whole development issue. The Government will deal with the saddest issue of all: rural poverty. I hope that all hon. Members have some understanding of how those matters can, and should, be addressed.

Mr. Tim Yeo: This has been a very significant debate that has raised many issues of enormous importance to the rural community. However, it has also been a desperately sad debate as it has exposed with brutal clarity the truth about Labour's attitude to the countryside. That attitude is founded on ignorance, riddled with prejudice, expressed without sympathy and is bordering on outright hostility. Labour's total lack of understanding of the needs and aspirations of the men, women and children who live in the countryside is nothing less than frightening.
Unfortunately, I do not have time to respond to all the points raised in the debate. However, I gladly pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), whose expertise on the subjects studied during many years of service at both MAFF and the Department of the Environment was clear from his speech. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) struggled—as he and his colleagues usually do now—with the dilemma of whether to attack the Government or the Opposition. As a result, most of his punches missed their targets.
I shall focus on four issues, the first of which is planning. On Radio 4 last week, the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), said:
The green belt is up for grabs".
They are chilling words, but we cannot say that we were not warned. It is no use the Minister shaking her head: that is what the hon. Gentleman said live on Radio 4. We were warned last August by the Deputy Prime Minister, who overturned the recommendation of an independent planning inspector and approved the industrial development of a 140-acre site in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Incidentally, that site was owned by the Labour-controlled Birmingham city council—not that I am suggesting that that was a factor in the Deputy Prime Minister's thinking.
When the Minister replies to the debate, will she repudiate the extraordinary comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central? Will she confirm categorically,

without qualification, that the rigorous protection of the green belt—which was a cornerstone of planning policy under the Conservative Government—will be maintained without any relaxation? Is she aware that if she refuses to give that assurance to the House today alarm will spread through millions of people, the quality of whose lives has been enhanced immeasurably by the green belt? They know—even if the Minister and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central do not—how eagerly developers will eye up the countryside that was protected previously by Conservative policy.
A wider planning issue is where the new homes will be built. I accept that there is a debate about how many there will be. Perhaps we shall not need 4.4 million new houses in the end, but we shall still need quite a lot. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) question the 4.4 million figure as he attempted to clothe himself in some kind of green mantle. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) for reminding me that the hon. Gentleman's remarks would be better addressed to the Labour-controlled local council in Stroud, which is proposing to despoil large areas of his constituency.
The Round Table on Sustainable Development recommended that 75 per cent. of those new homes should be built on sites that had been previously developed. At present, the country is achieving a figure of 50 per cent. Contrary to the comments made by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), the previous Government were ready to raise that target. Indeed, I have no doubt that the consultation document that they published earlier this year was the prelude to a significant increase in the target.
The question now is what the Labour Government will do. Will they set a higher target for the proportions of homes that should be built on previously developed sites? If they fail to do so, and if they weaken the existing controls over the development of green-field sites, their decision will cause dismay in the countryside.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal rightly pointed out, it is not just the countryside that suffers when such development takes place in green-field sites; the inner cities suffer as well, because allowing new homes in the countryside leads to an exodus of the very people whom the inner cities need if the process of regeneration, in which the Conservative Government played such a distinguished part, is to continue.
I shall deal with one of the Government's socialist proposals. It was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)—the right to roam. This trespassers' charter sits ill with new Labour's proclaimed agenda. I am not surprised that it has few champions. Apparently they include that well-known specimen of new Labour, the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher).
Will the Minister confirm, when she winds up, that the consultation paper on the right to roam has not appeared because her Department's proposals have run into trouble elsewhere in Whitehall? Does she recognise that the right to roam is potentially an extremely dangerous threat to the cause of conservation and the environment in many parts of the country and could destroy many previously undisturbed and valuable habitats?

Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman condemn with me the action of


absentee landowners, such as the Garendon estate in north-west Leicestershire, which for decades deny public access to wild, beautiful, lonely, unfarmed places on the ground that it would damage those places and yet the moment mineral operators want to come and quarry they welcome them with open arms and open wallets? In those circumstances, is not profit being given a higher priority than preservation, and contamination more common than conservation?

Mr. Yeo: I am sorry that I gave way. I understand that the family concerned has a distinguished record of conservation and far from being an absentee landlord is resident in the constituency of one of my hon. Friends.
I suggest that instead of publishing the right to roam consultation paper the Government should abandon their policy and devote the resources to encouraging the voluntary agreements that have been so successful in extending access in the past few years.
On resources, the Minister has a chance this evening to allay the fears that the Government may tamper with the formula on the revenue support grant to take cash away from rural councils. Any caving in by the Labour Government to unjustified demands from their allies in the towns for extra money at the expense of the rural community will not pass unchallenged. Will the Minister confirm that the countryside will be no less favourably treated by Labour when the revenue support grant is announced next month than it has been in the past?
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned the Rural Development Commission. Will the Minister confirm that the commission's budget will not be plundered and that it will be fully protected? Does she recognise that the Rural Development Commission's rural regeneration work, which accounts for £22 million of its spending, is not a suitable source from which to take away resources and give them to the regional development agencies, whose focus is inevitably likely to be more urban? Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what the regional development agencies will contribute to the countryside.
On accountability, I was dismayed to learn that the Government are abandoning their predecessor's tradition of publishing an annual update of the White Paper "Rural England". Is the refusal to continue to monitor the widely welcomed initiatives in the 1995 White Paper because the Government do not intend to continue with the policies contained within it, or is it simply that despite all the rhetoric about open government Labour is terrified of further scrutiny of its failure to serve the countryside? Is it that the Government know full well that by publishing regular updates of the White Paper they would expose the cuts in resources that they are planning and the consequences of those cuts?
The House has learnt today what many outside have begun to suspect, and that is that the Labour Government, with their urban-based majority—[Interruption.]—neither understand nor care about the countryside. The Prime Minister's claim that Labour is governing Britain in the interests of all the people is nothing more than a hollow sham. I commend the motion to the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): It is always a pleasure to listen to the rants of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), and we had a vintage performance tonight. I shall get round to answering some of his questions in due course. Initially, I shall deal with the rather virtual reality view of politics that Conservative Members seem to be propounding. It is a myth, and it is perpetuated with increasing desperation by the Conservative party, that Labour does not represent the interests of the countryside. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was at it in Farmers Weekly recently when he said that we, Labour, did not represent those interests. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has similarly ranted.
Following the general election, wherever the Conservative party has representation the Tories do not represent the countryside. Labour has 170 county constituencies while the Conservatives hold 135 and the Liberal Democrats 32. Labour now represents more county constituencies than both Opposition parties put together. In the general election, Labour enjoyed a national swing of 10.7 per cent., which was almost equalled in county constituencies with a swing of 10.4 per cent.
I shall not bore the House by going through the swings against Conservative Members who have contributed to the debate, all purporting to represent the countryside. Suffice it to say that on 1 May the countryside turned against the Conservative party in the same way as urban areas. The rump that the Tory party parades as an outdated caricature of town versus country can do only damage to the countryside while Labour is the one-nation party. It is Labour which seeks to unite the country and to create partnerships for progress. The Conservatives seek to divide the country in an attempt to set one part of it against the other. Before we take any more pious lectures from Conservatives about the needs of the countryside, it would be wise to remember the legacy that they left us to struggle with after 18 years of their stewardship of rural areas.
What was that legacy? I shall pluck a few examples out of the air to give the House the flavour of it. Between 1979 and 1996, there was a 144 per cent. increase in crime in the English and Welsh shire counties. There was a 29 per cent. cut in bus journeys after deregulation and 75 per cent. of rural parishes now have no daily bus services.
The Conservatives tolerated low pay and failed in their attempt to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board—a proposal that was opposed by everyone but the free market zealots in their own ranks. There are plenty more examples—I could go on.
There was the BSE fiasco, which devastated many rural communities, put public health at risk and cost the country billions of pounds. It was a Tory legacy. That debacle was almost as awful as the poll tax, which helped a few large landowners in the other place but caused massive hardship in our rural communities.
It is no wonder that the Tories lost so much support in the countryside on 1 May. It is no wonder that the swings against them in the rural areas were nearly 10.5 per cent. It is no wonder that they do not represent so much as a tree or a blade of grass in Scotland and Wales.


The people gave them their verdict on 1 May, after 18 years of Conservative stewardship in our rural areas, and it was a damning verdict.
I will now deal with specific points that were made in the debate. [Interruption.] I gave up some of my time so that Opposition Members could make their speeches.
The idea that somehow the Rural Development Commission has no future was raised by several right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and the hon. Member for South Suffolk. Ministers have fully discussed the rural role of the regional development agencies with Lord Shuttleworth, who is chairman of the Rural Development Commission. I can assure the House that the commission's views will be given due weight when the Government consider the role of RDAs. Decisions on this will be announced when the White Paper is published later in the year.
I also assure any hon. Members who may be worried about this that the RDAs will not be urban based. They will have a remit to look after the economic good of the entire areas that they cover—not just urban areas but rural areas. That will be central to their reason for existing.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned a possible inquiry into the BSE legacy. That is under active consideration. I hope that my assurances about the RDC and its future satisfy his worries.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and the hon. Members for South Suffolk and for North Cornwall mentioned household growth. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made an extraordinary speech, given that the figure of 4.4 million was his. Those figures were published by the previous Government. We are currently examining the 700 responses to the Green Paper that he published. We do not dispute the figures, and neither does he.

Mr. David Ruffley: Does the Minister agree or disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who said that the green belt is up for grabs—yes or no?

Angela Eagle: That is not what he said. I will read exactly what he said. I have a transcript. He was asked by an interviewer:
So the green belt is up for grabs then?
My hon. Friend then said:
The green belt is up for grabs as much as it ever was.
That is what that means: as much as it ever was, which is true because the Government have not changed the policy introduced by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal.

Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: No, I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman has had his chance to make his views known. It is interesting that he now talks about a 75 per cent. brown-field site target when his Government were considering 50 per cent. and seeing whether they could

achieve 60 per cent. Out of government, he immediately finds another 15 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman made a disingenuous contribution to the debate.

Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Gummer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the hon. Lady is not giving way. Let the debate be completed in the good order in which it has been conducted so far.

Angela Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman's speech was particularly disingenuous in the light of his previous responsibilities in government. In misrepresenting our policy on green-belt and brown-field sites, the right hon. Gentleman is simply scaremongering.
Are those Conservative Members who are worried about our policy prepared for us not to build the houses that we are required to build and to put up with the homelessness, the rising land prices and the dislocation in society that failure to make provision for the people who will need housing in the future will create?
Through the planning process, the Government will create as much brown-field site development as possible. However, we must remember that even in rural areas there are population and housing formulation changes. A smaller number of people are living in individual households and people are living longer in single households because of the success of our health services. We must ensure that new householders and young people have the chance to live in the areas in which they were brought up. Those living locally account for 90 per cent. of the predicted housing need. It is not the result of mass migration into the countryside. Conservative Members are simply scaremongering if they try to present it in that way.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk said that the right to roam was a socialist policy: good—I am glad that he recognises that. The hon. Gentleman is a well-known socialist theorist, possibly to rival Marx, so we all listen to what he has to say about what is a socialist policy. However, there will be no indiscriminate right to roam—rather a right to access. The right to access was in the manifesto on which we were elected and which was supported by many rural and urban voters.
We must balance the right of access to land with the responsible use of that right. The consultation paper will appear shortly and there will be a two to three month consultation period. We shall listen extremely carefully to the views of all those involved and we expect legislation on the issue in the next Session. I emphasise that, unlike Conservative Members who do not understand the meaning of the word consultation, the Government will take their duties in the consultative process extremely seriously.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: No.

Mr. Sayeed: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must make clear her intentions.

Angela Eagle: In my usual polite way, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: No. Is that clear enough?
In my usual polite way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I then realised that he had not even done the House the courtesy of being here for the debate. He may be a new Member, but he must not expect to walk in at the end of a debate and be heard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Retread."] Even though the hon. Gentleman is a retread or a recycled Member, if he wants to intervene he should do the House the courtesy of being here for the debate.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: No.
The debate has shown that Labour is the party of the countryside, and that Labour understands and represents the interests of rural people the length and breadth of the land.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 371.

Division No. 82]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clappison, James


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Arbuthnot, James



Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Collins, Tim


Bercow, John
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Curry, Rt Hon David


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Day, Stephen


Brady, Graham
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan, Alan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Burns, Simon
Evans, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Faber, David


Cash, William
Fabricant, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Fallon, Michael



Flight, Howard


Chope, Christopher
Forth, Rt Hon Eric





Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paice, James


Fox, Dr Liam
Paterson, Owen


Fraser, Christopher
Pickles, Eric


Garnier, Edward
Prior, David


Gibb, Nick
Randall, John


Gill, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robathan, Andrew


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gray, James
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Green, Damian
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Greenway, John
Ruffley, David


Grieve, Dominic
St Aubyn, Nick


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hague, Rt Hon William
Shepherd, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hawkins, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Hayes, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Heald, Oliver
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Spring, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Steen, Anthony


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Streeter, Gary


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Swayne, Desmond


Hunter, Andrew
Syms, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jenkin, Bernard
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Johnson Smith,
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Key, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Townend, John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tredinnick, David


Lansley, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Tyrie, Andrew


Letwin, Oliver
Viggers, Peter


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Walter, Robert


Lidington, David
Wardle, Charles


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Waterson, Nigel


Loughton, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Luff, Peter
Whitney, Sir Raymond


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


MacKay, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Willetts, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Madel, Sir David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Woodward, Shaun


Maples, John
Yeo, Tim


Mates, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian



May, Mrs Theresa
Tellers for the Ayes:


Norman, Archie
Mr. John Whittingdale and


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. James Cran.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bennett, Andrew F


Ainger, Nick
Benton, Joe


Allan, Richard
Bermingham, Gerald


Allen, Graham
Berry, Roger


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Best, Harold


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Betts, Clive


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blizzard, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Atherton, Ms Candy
Boateng, Paul


Austin, John
Borrow, David


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Barnes, Harry
Bradshaw, Ben


Barron, Kevin
Brand, Dr Peter


Bayley, Hugh
Breed, Colin


Beard, Nigel
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Begg, Miss Anne
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Beggs, Roy
Browne, Desmond


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Buck, Ms Karen


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Burden, Richard


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Burgon, Colin






Burnett, John
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fisher, Mark


Byers, Stephen
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Follett, Barbara


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Don (Bath)


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Michael, Jabez (Hastings)


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Michael, J (Worcester)


Casale, Roger
Foulkes, George


Caton, Martin
Fyfe, Maria


Cawsey, Ian
Galbraith, Sam


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gapes, Mike


Chaytor, David
Gardiner, Barry


Chidgey, David
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gerrard, Neil


Church, Ms Judith
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clapham, Michael
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Godman, Norman A


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Godsiff, Roger



Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gorrie, Donald


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Coaker, Vernon
Grogan, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gunnell, John


Coleman, Iain
Hain, Peter


Colman, Tony
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Connarty, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cooper, Yvette
Hanson, David


Corbett, Robin
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harris, Dr Evan


Corston, Ms Jean
Harvey, Nick


Cotter, Brian
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cousins, Jim
Healey, John


Cranston, Ross
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Crausby, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hepburn, Stephen


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Heppell, John


Cummings, John
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Hill, Keith



Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hoey, Kate


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Home Robertson, John


Dalyell, Tam
Hoon, Geoffrey


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hope, Phil


Darvill, Keith
Hopkins, Kelvin


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Davidson, Ian
Hoyle, Lindsay


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dawson, Hilton
Hurst, Alan


Dean, Mrs Janet
Hutton, John


Denham, John
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Illsley, Eric


Dismore, Andrew
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dobbin, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jenkins, Brian


Donohoe, Brian H
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Doran, Frank
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Drew, David



Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Ms Jennifer (Wolverh'ton SW)


Edwards, Huw



Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Ennis, Jeff
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Fatchett, Derek
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Fearn, Ronnie
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)





Jowell, Ms Tessa
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pearson, Ian


Keeble, Ms Sally
Perham, Ms Linda


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pickthall, Colin


Keetch, Paul
Pike, Peter L


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Plaskitt, James


Kemp, Fraser
Pollard, Kerry


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Pond, Chris


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pope, Greg


Khabra, Piara S
Pound, Stephen


Kidney, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kingham, Ms Tess
Quinn, Lawrie


Kirkwood, Archy
Radice, Giles


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rammell, Bill


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rapson, Syd


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Raynsford, Nick


Laxton, Bob
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lepper, David
Rendel, David


Leslie, Christopher
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Levitt, Tom



Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Linton, Martin
Rogers, Allan


Livingstone, Ken
Rooker, Jeff


Livsey, Richard
Rooney, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lock, David
Rowlands, Ted


McAllion, John
Roy, Frank


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruane, Chris


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Macdonald, Calum
Salter, Martin


McDonnell, John
Sanders, Adrian


McIsaac, Shona
Savidge, Malcolm


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sawford, Phil


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


McLeish, Henry
Sheerman, Barry


MacShane, Denis
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mactaggart, Fiona
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McWalter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert



Martlew, Eric
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Maxton, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Michael, Alun
Snape, Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Soley, Clive


Milburn, Alan
Spellar, John


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mitchell, Austin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moore, Michael
Stevenson, George


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morley, Elliot
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mountford, Kali
Stringer, Graham


Mudie, George
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mullin, Chris
Stunell, Andrew


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Norris, Dan



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Olner, Bill
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Öpik, Lembit
Timms, Stephen


Organ, Mrs Diana
Todd, Mark






Tonge, Dr Jenny
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Touhig, Don
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Trickett, Jon
(Swansea W)


Truswell, Paul
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)
Willis, Phil


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wills, Michael


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Winnick, David


Tyler, Paul
Wood, Mike


Vaz, Keith
Woolas, Phil


Wallace, James
Wray, James


Ward, Ms Claire
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Watts, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Webb, Steve
Mr. David Jamieson and


White, Brian
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 171.

Division No. 83]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ainger, Nick
Chaytor, David


Allen, Graham
Chisholm, Malcolm


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Church, Ms Judith


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clapham, Michael


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clark, Dr Lynda


Austin, John
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Banks, Tony
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Beard, Nigel
Clelland, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clwyd, Ann


Begg, Miss Anne
Coaker, Vernon


Beggs, Roy
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Coleman, Iain


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Colman, Tony


Bennett, Andrew F
Connarty, Michael


Benton, Joe
Cooper, Yvette


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Berry, Roger
Corbyn, Jeremy


Best, Harold
Corston, Ms Jean


Betts, Clive
Cousins, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cranston, Ross


Blizzard, Bob
Crausby, David


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Borrow, David
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cummings, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)


Bradshaw, Ben



Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Browne, Desmond
Darvill, Keith


Buck, Ms Karen
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Burden, Richard
Davidson, Ian


Burgon, Colin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Byers, Stephen
Dawson, Hilton


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Denham, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Canavan, Dennis
Dismore, Andrew


Caplin, Ivor
Dobbin, Jim


Casale, Roger
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Caton, Martin
Donohoe, Brian H


Cawsey, Ian
Doran, Frank





Drew, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Drown, Ms Julia
Keeble, Ms Sally


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Edwards, Huw
Kemp, Fraser


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Ennis, Jeff
Khabra, Piara S


Fatchett, Derek
Kidney, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fitzpatrick, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Flint, Caroline
Kingham, Ms Tess


Flynn, Paul
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Follett, Barbara
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Laxton, Bob


Foulkes, George
Lepper, David


Fyfe, Maria
Leslie, Christopher


Galbraith, Sam
Levitt, Tom


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gardner, Barry
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gerrard, Neil
Linton, Martin


Gibson, Dr Ian
Livingstone, Ken


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Godman, Norman A
Lock, David


Godsiff, Roger
McAllion, John


Goggins, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McDonnell, John


Grocott, Bruce
McIsaac, Shona


Grogan, John
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gunnell, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
MacShane, Denis


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McWalter, Tony


Hanson, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mallaber, Judy


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marek, Dr John


Healey, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heppell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Maxton, John


Hill, Keith
Merron, Gillian


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Michael, Alun


Hoey, Kate
Milburn, Alan


Home Robertson, John
Miller, Andrew


Hoon, Geoffrey
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hope, Phil
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morley, Elliot


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mudie, George


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mullin, Chris


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hutton, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Illsley, Eric
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Olner, Bill


Jenkins, Brian
O'Neill, Martin


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Ms Jennifer (Wolverh'ton SW)
Plaskitt, James



Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pound, Stephen


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)






Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Prosser, Gwyn
Stinchcombe, Paul


Purchase, Ken
Stoate, Dr Howard


Quinn, Lawrie
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Rammell, Bill
Stringer, Graham


Rapson, Syd
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Raynsford, Nick
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Robertson, Rt Hon George
(Dewsbury)


(Hamilton S)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rogers, Allan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rooker, Jeff
Timms, Stephen


Rooney, Terry
Todd, Mark


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Touhig, Don


Rowlands, Ted
Trickett, Jon


Roy, Frank
Truswell, Paul


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Salter, Martin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Savidge, Malcolm
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sawford, Phil
Vaz, Keith


Sedgemore, Brian
Ward, Ms Claire


Sheerman, Barry
Watts, David


Short, Rt Hon Clare
White, Brian


Singh, Marsha
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wills, Michael



Winnick, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Woolas, Phil


Snape, Peter
Wray, James


Soley, Clive
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Speller, John



Squire, Ms Rachel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Stevenson, George
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Allan, Richard
Collins, Tim


Amess, David
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Cotter, Brian


Arbuthnot, James
Cran, James


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Curry, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dafis, Cynog


Baldry, Tony
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davis, Rt Hon David (Halternprice)


Bercow, John
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Evans, Nigel


Brady, Graham
Faber, David


Brand, Dr Peter
Fabricant, Michael


Breed, Colin
Fallon, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fearn, Ronnie


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Flight, Howard


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Burnett, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burns, Simon
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butterfill, John
Fox, Dr Liam


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fraser, Christopher


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Garnier, Edward


Cash, William
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chidgey, David
Gibb, Nick


Chope, Christopher
Gill, Christopher


Clappison, James
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


(Rushcliffe)
Gorrie, Donald





Gray, James
Pickles, Eric


Green, Damian
Prior, David


Greenway, John
Randall, John


Grieve, Dominic
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Rendel, David


Hague, Rt Hon William
Robathan, Andrew


Hammond, Philip
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Harris, Dr Evan
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Harvey, Nick
Ruffley, David


Hawkins, Nick
Russell, Bob Colchester)


Hayes, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Sanders, Adrian


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Shepherd, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hunter, Andrew
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spring, Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Steen, Anthony


Johnson Smith,
Streeter, Gary


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Stunell, Desmond


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Swayne, Desmond


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Syms, Robert


Keetch, Paul
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Taylor, John M (Esher & Walton)


Key, Robert
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Lansley, Andrew
Townend, John


Leigh, Edward
Tredinnick, David


Letwin, Oliver
Trend, Michael


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tyler, Paul


Lidington, David
Tyrie, Andrew


Livsey, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Wallace, James


Llwyd, Elfyn
Walter, Robert


Loughton, Tim
Wardle, Charles


Luff, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Webb, Steve


MacKay, Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Madel, Sir David
Whittingdale, John


Malins, Humfrey
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maples, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Mates, Michael
Willetts, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Willis, Phil


May, Mrs Theresa
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Moore, Michael
Woodward, Shaun


Norman, Archie
Yeo, Tim


Öpik, Lembit
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Paice, James
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Paterson, Owen
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House deplores the neglect of the countryside and rural areas over the past eighteen years by the previous administration; congratulates the Government on its commitment to the countryside; welcomes the Government's intention to create the conditions necessary to let the rural economy flourish, to protect and enhance the rural environment and to enable everyone to enjoy the countryside; and further welcomes the start already made, notably on the reform of the CAP, the review of the Organic Aid Scheme, introducing Arable Stewardship, and reviewing the legislation for the protection of hedges and SSSIs.

Roads (East Sussex)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland]

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise an issue of massive importance to my constituency and to East Sussex. It is of no small importance to those of my colleagues who made the trek to Eastbourne recently for what the press deemed to be our bonding session. It is a great pleasure to see the Minister in her place, with her minder.
The importance of the issue to East Sussex is borne out by the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). I have also had a note from the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster). Almost all parties are united by the need for a variety of improvements to our local roads. I know, for example, that my right hon. and hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye feel strongly about improvements to the A259 and related schemes. I pay special tribute to our former colleague, Tim Rathbone, who was Member for Lewes until the general election and a doughty fighter for the road schemes about which I am going to talk.
The first scheme involves the A27 between Lewes and Polegate. My preference would have been for complete dualling of that stretch, which is a massive traffic bottleneck. After much investigation, the previous Government produced a scaled-down project involving three schemes: the A27 Wilmington bypass, the Selmeston bypass, and the Southerham-Beddingham improvement. In his announcement of the scheme the then Minister responsible for roads noted:
The A27 is a vital artery for Sussex.
How right he was. Had those improvements been pushed forward, they would have not only increased dramatically the road's effectiveness for business and tourism but made it a much safer carriageway for local people and visitors.
In a letter about the A27 to a local paper, the then county engineer stated:
There are significant safety gains to be made from the provision of a modern dual carriageway",
which was all that the scheme involved and which would have produced an accident rate of approximately one third of that of the present single carriageway. The scheme would also have addressed all substantive environmental objections to the original A27 plans. As far as I can tell, that scheme lies a long way ahead and may have to wait for the next Conservative Government to see the light of day.
This evening I want to concentrate on the Polegate bypass, which in turn was part of the Weald and Downland design, build, finance and operate scheme. As the Minister will know from her briefing, the bypass is not a new idea but was envisaged before the war. Polegate is no longer in my constituency. In its wisdom, the boundary commission moved it into Lewes. The routes that go through Polegate are vital to my constituents. There are almost always major traffic problems in and near Polegate. The road is vital to our local road system, linking it to the M23, M25 and the port of Newhaven.

Those wider connections are the reason for the presence of my right hon. and hon. Friends and of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye. The issues go far wider than just Polegate.
I have taken delegations to meet more than one Minister. Most recently, in early July I took a delegation of constituents to meet Baroness Hayman to go through the issues. We represented a wide range of bodies: all the local authorities without exception; business organisations, including Sussex Enterprise; and representatives of the tourist industry, which is, of course, very important in our part of the world. That was backed up by hundreds of letters from large employers and others.
I pay tribute to Councillor Peter Wallis, chairman of the transport and environment committee in East Sussex county council and his excellent director Mr. Bob Wilkins, both of whom have been very supportive of my efforts and those of my colleagues.
In a recent document which was available to Baroness Hayman, East Sussex county council made the following point:
Proposals to develop a Polegate bypass have been inextricably linked from the very beginning with the construction of the A22 new route from the A27 at Dittons to Seaside, Eastbourne as part of an overall strategy for the Eastbourne area.
It says that in the public inquiries over the scheme the inspector made it clear that
the Orders for the A22 should be confirmed unless the Polegate Bypass was removed from the National Roads Programme.
The new A22 route in my constituency, that would take traffic from the industrial areas and the Sovereign Harbour area of Eastbourne up to Dittons Corner by Polegate, is a major road project costing £28 million which is nearing completion. If it linked up with the Polegate bypass, if that were built, there would be considerable benefits for the area. According to the county council, there would be immediate benefits of some 1,500 jobs in the new business parks in the Eastbourne Park area as part of the Eastbourne borough plan. As the county council points out, these sites are currently landlocked and need to be opened up by the development of the new route.
High-quality office developments will create about 1,000 jobs in Sovereign Harbour, the new marina development incorporating many berths for yachts, houses and in due course shops and a hotel. There is also the possibility of commercial development.
It is no exaggeration for the county council to say:
The strategy for sustainable development in East Sussex would be fundamentally undermined if the proposed trunk road improvements in the county associated with the Weald and Downland Network DBFO package were now to be withdrawn … Such a decision would have a devastating impact on the county's prospects for economic recovery.
We need a dual carriageway paralleling the south coast between the A23 and the A21.
The improvements are supported by every local authority in the area and by Sussex Enterprise. The Polegate bypass scheme had gone through all its statutory stages and was ready to start construction at the time of the general election. The Polegate bypass must be a dual carriageway as it not only carries east-west traffic around Polegate, but north-south traffic into Eastbourne.
Hon. Members can imagine my concern and that of the councils involved and many residents in the area when, as part of the Government's roads review earlier this year,


it was decided that the scheme would be put on hold at least until next spring and possibly would never see the light of day. As the county council said, that would have a devastating impact on the area.
I have received hundreds of letters of support for the project and expressions of disappointment and distress at its suspension or possible cancellation. A company called T. Cox & Son Ltd. wrote:
The cancellation of a new A27 Lewes to Polegate trunk road was a major consideration in our decision to relocate … from Eastbourne to Tonbridge.
One of our major local employers, Anglo Dutch Meats, employing more than 300 people, wrote:
We have continued to invest in the area because of the previous Government's commitment to improving the road system. However, if this commitment is now not to be honoured, we will be forced to consider relocation of our factories which will result in an increase in unemployment for Eastbourne and Hastings.

Mr. Charles Wardle: May I assure my hon. Friend that his important message will be endorsed by every sensible thinker in the county? May I link with his remarks about Polegate the importance of the Hastings eastern and the Hastings western and Bexhill bypasses and, with them, the Marsh road link over the Pevensey levels? Those matter to local development as well as to through traffic to and from the channel tunnel.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—this is a seamless robe of projects that hang together.
Another letter I received came from the leading surveyors and valuers Stiles Harold Williams and referred to one of its clients. The letter states:
I think there is little doubt that until the Bypass is built our client's development, which has planning consent which would create 250-500 permanent jobs will not go ahead.
Just to show that there is almost total unanimity on the subject of the Polegate bypass, I have a press release issued by Councillor Roy Martin, who is not only town mayor of Polegate and someone with whom I have worked from time to time, but a leading local Liberal Democrat. He writes:
I now consider it is time for the silent majority in Polegate who are concerned about the lack of a dual carriageway By-Pass around the town to relieve the intolerable noise, vibration and air pollution problems experienced by residents, to speak up.
I entirely agree with that.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I should add that those in the industrial estates to the north of Eastbourne have told me in strong terms that they regard it as a bad decision to postpone these improvements, seemingly indefinitely.

Mr. Waterson: My right hon. Friend and I have received correspondence on this subject from many of the same companies.
I have three important questions for the Minister. First, how much compensation is being paid, or is to be paid, to the successful contractors—money that could be spent on the bypass itself? I have seen a variety of figures quoted. The Times, referring to the Paymaster General, spoke of
a compensation bill of more than £6 million".

A local newspaper quoted a figure of £143 million, but I believe that that covers all the projects that were put on hold at the same time. Both are amazing figures, nevertheless.
Secondly, does the Minister accept that there are substantial benefits for the local communities from the project going ahead? On that subject, it is interesting to see the document attached to the very press statement announcing the Minister of Transport's decision on 28 July. On safety, that document states:
Improvements in standards of routes have been forecast to bring accident savings
and on environment, it states:
Lamberhurst Bypass, Polegate Bypass and the A259 Hastings schemes would remove through traffic from settlements"—
settlements being that rather unsatisfactory word used to mean places where people live.
Thirdly, when can we expect a decision? I know that the Government are all about rolling programmes of reviews and more reviews, but sooner or later—surely—there has to be a decision. Originally, we were told that the review would be completed by next spring, yet, only last week in the Sussex Express, fears were expressed that
a decision on the Polegate bypass could be further delayed
because of an announcement by the Minister of Transport, who said that
the Polegate scheme is one of eight 'case studies' to be reappraised in an attempt to find a better way of taking decisions on new roads.
I can tell the Minister a better way, which is to take a decision of some sort.
In conclusion, the Minister must be aware from all the representations, letters and other documents that she and her colleagues have received that there is anger and disappointment, which I share, among my constituents on this subject. It is no good fobbing us off with talk of yet another review. We need the Polegate bypass now. If we do not have it now, first we shall have contractors who will be paid not to build it; secondly, we shall have spent £28 million of taxpayers' money on the new A22, which ends in the middle of a field—the biggest and most expensive cul de sac in Europe and a monument to the Government's inability to make decisions; and, thirdly, my constituents will face ever more job losses in a shrinking local economy, not to mention a massive inconvenience to both local residents and visitors to the area. Furthermore, my constituents living along or near the existing A22 can expect no improvement whatever—indeed, a deterioration—in both road safety and the local environment.
I urge the Minister to give us some hard indication tonight that that project and the whole of that DBFO scheme will be taken out of the review and initiated so that work can start as soon as possible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Before I respond to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), may I offer my apologies to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the whole House and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for my failure to be present in the House for last night's Adjournment debate. I can offer neither excuse nor reason, simply my most humble apologies.


I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne for raising these important issues, and for being so generous in affording time to his hon. Friends on issues that are clearly important not only to Eastbourne but to East Sussex. I also thank him for setting his concerns on infrastructure improvements in East Sussex strongly and clearly within the context of community needs, regeneration and safety.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire for early decisions on the schemes that he mentioned, but he will know that the Government have embarked on a fundamental review of transport policy. This is not a "fobbing off' exercise. Our objectives are for a strong economy, a sustainable environment and an inclusive society. As he pointed out, transport is a vital part of all those aims.
The backdrop to our fundamental review is a candid recognition that we need a shift in direction. Revised national road traffic forecasts published last month show traffic increasing by nearly 40 per cent. over the next 20 years. If current policies continue, congestion will get worse, the impact on the environment will be even more severe, and those who have no access to private transport will find it even more difficult to get around.
We must develop an integrated transport system that makes the best use of the contribution that each mode can make; ensures that all options are considered on a basis that is fair and is seen to be fair; and takes into account, from the outset, considerations of accessibility, integration, safety, the environment and the economy. Above all—I have little doubt that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me here—an integrated transport system must be sustainable. One of the encouraging aspects of what is, indeed, an ambitious task is the degree of consensus on the need for change.
It is a feature of the policy development work now under way that we are involving a wide range of external advice and expertise, including local authorities, business, trade unions, transport professionals and transport users. That is the context for the roads review, examining the role that trunk roads should play in an integrated and sustainable transport policy. Against the background of increased congestion, we have three broad options for roads: first, to make better use of existing infrastructure; secondly, to manage demand; and thirdly, to provide new infrastructure.
To make best use of existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It has been provided at substantial cost in both financial and environmental terms, and we must make the best use of that investment. Technologies old and new can help in making better use of our roads network. A number of measures can also bring safety benefits, and we will need to ensure that these are given proper priority. We need, however, to be realistic about what the various options can deliver.
We must also look seriously at other harder options: managing demand and providing new infrastructure. Managing demand is a vast topic. It encompasses reducing the need to travel, by land use planning for example, an assessment of the extent to which a shift to other modes can be encouraged, and inevitably the question of controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms.
At a local level, many local authorities are seeking, by means of integrated transport packages, to combine these measures, so that mobility is maintained but adverse consequences of that mobility are reduced.
The Highways Agency's programme of small safety schemes is continuing, but major new construction is under review. Providing new infrastructure is a very difficult option, financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Our starting point is that we shall not proceed with major new road construction unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative; even then, there will be difficult choices to be made within the limited resources available.
There is no substitute for rigorous case-by-case examination of the options. Volume II of our consultation document "What Role for Trunk Roads?" sets out, region by region, the perceived traffic problems and the roads programme inherited from our predecessors.

Mr. Wardle: As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has already asked, how long is all this likely to take?

Ms Jackson: We have given a clear commitment that the White Paper, which will be fundamental to our policy for integrated transport, will be published early next year.
The existence of a scheme in the inherited programme is seen as prima facie evidence that there is a transport problem. We are seeking from our regional consultations a view on whether these are the most important problems or whether others deserve greater priority. We envisage two outputs from that part of the review: a firm, short-term investment programme and a programme of studies to consider the remaining problems out of which the medium and long-term investment programme will emerge.
The Government office for the south-east has held three day-long seminars as part of our consultation process on integrated transport. A seminar in Ashford on 14 October considered transport corridors in the east of the region, including the south coast route and north-south routes between the M25 and the south coast.
Points that the hon. Member for Eastbourne has made about the importance of the Polegate bypass, the improvements between Lewes and Polegate, and other trunk road schemes in terms of safety, regeneration, environmental relief and integration with local transport investment and land use planning objectives, were strongly made at that seminar, and we shall be taking those views into account along with the written and other representations that we have received.
I recognise the importance of the A22 scheme from Dittons to Eastbourne town centre in terms of the relief it provides to the existing A22 and the access it affords to expanding commercial and industrial areas. However, we cannot allow a decision on the Polegate bypass to be driven by this alone. Should the bypass not go ahead, we would, of course, need to consider alternatives with the Highways Agency and local authorities.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), have also supported other schemes, which, together with the Polegate bypass, made up the Weald and Downland DBFO—design, build, finance and operate—project, considered this summer as


part of the accelerated review. I take the opportunity to offer an assurance that the points that he and others made will be fully taken into account in the current review.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne mentioned some local concern at the announcement that the Polegate bypass scheme is one of eight case studies being analysed as part of a project to develop a new appraisal framework. The aim is to define a method capable of looking at all potential solutions to transport problems, and identifying options that best meet the objectives of integration, accessibility, safety, economy and environmental impacts. The purpose is to develop a new appraisal methodology rather than to study a specific case per se. The Polegate bypass is one of the eight because it was felt to be a good example of its type, and had already been studied in some depth.
Developing a forward-looking integrated transport policy that supports a strong economy, contributes to a sustainable environment and helps to create a just and inclusive society is, as I have said, a huge challenge.

Through the work now under way on trunk roads, we want to achieve a robust short-term programme and a system for planning future investment in the road network—whether measures to make better use of the existing network or to provide new infrastructure—which is fair and seen to be fair, which allows a proper opportunity for all concerned to make their contribution, and which looks at transport problems squarely in the context of an integrated strategy.
Of the three questions that the hon. Member for Eastbourne posed, I trust that I have covered the last two. However, if he believes that I have failed to respond to some issues in detail, he should write to me, and I shall be happy to reply. As to compensation, all bids will be reviewed on their merits. The amounts to which he referred are mere speculation. We are examining such bids and, as I said, they will be reviewed on their merits.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o 'clock.